Augument17 尽情拍吧~~ 呵呵~

@amy@UID：209096

题目
Augument17  The following appeared in a letter to the editor of the Walnut Grove town newspaper.
"Walnut Grove's town council has advocated switching from EZ Disposal (which has had the contract for trash collection services in Walnut Grove for the past ten years) to ABC Waste, because EZ recently raised its monthly fee from $2,000 to $2,500 a month, whereas ABC's fee is still $2,000. But the town council is mistaken; we should continue using EZ. EZ collects trash twice a week, while ABC collects only once. Moreover, EZ-which, like ABC, currently has a fleet of 20 trucks-has ordered additional trucks. Finally, EZ provides exceptional service: 80 percent of respondents to last year's town survey agreed that they were 'satisfied' with EZ's performance."
翻译：Walnut Grove的市委提议选择ABC Waste，而不是EZ Disposal（它是过去十年中和Walnut Grove签约提供垃圾收集服务的机构），因为EZ最近把他们每月的收费从$2000提高到了$2500，而ABC仍然是$2000。但市委是错误的，我们应该继续使用EZ。EZ每周收集两次垃圾，而ABC只收集一次。而且，EZ当前的卡车拥有量和ABC一样都是20辆，但它已定购了更多的车辆。最后，EZ还提供优越的服务：去年市镇调查中80％的回应者同意他们对于EZ的表现是"满意"的。

**********************************************************
提纲
（1）市委应该确认是否需要每周收集2次
（2）应确认收集Walnut Grove是否需要20辆卡车或者更多，如果需要，EZ增加的卡车是否用来收集
Walnut Grove的垃圾
（3）80%的回答者说满意，可是没有说调查了多少人，调查的人是否代表大多数人的意见，而且那是去年的调查，有可能现在的满意度已经变了。

**********************************************************
正文（417字）
In this argument, the arguer recommends that the suggestion of Walnut Grove's town council that switching from EZ Disposal to ABC Waste is wrong because although EZ raised its monthly fee from $2000 to $2500, they collects trash twice a week, and they has ordered additional trucks, moreover, according to last year's town survey, 80% of the respondents were satisfied with EZ. The reasoning seems logical, but after a careful examination, we can find several fatal flaws as follows.

Firstly, the arguer should make sure whether the town's trash need to be collected twice a week. It's possible that the town does not have lots of trash that need collection twice a week, then the service of collection twice a week is a waste, and collection once a week is enough.

Secondly, although EZ has ordered additional trucks, we are not sure if it need. So the arguer should survey how many trucks were used by EZ to collect Walnut Grove's trash. If the number is less than 20, then adding trucks is not necessary. If the trucks are still not enough after 20 trucks are all used, then adding trucks is necessary. Grant that adding trucks is necessary, the arguer should affirm whether the new added trucks are used to serve Walnut Grove's trash collection.

Thirdly, the survey's result is also doubtable. It only reveals 80% of respondents were satisfied, but does not indicates how many people took the survey and if they can represent most people's opinion. For example, if the town has 500 residents, but only 20 people took the survey, and 15 people responded, then only 12 people said they are satisfied. Thus, the survey is invalid. In addition, the survey was conducted last year, and one year past, the percent of satisfaction may be changed. From above, the survey cannot be used as evidence.

To sum up, the arguer’s conclusion reached in this argument lacks credibility since all the reasons are not sufficient to support his assertion. He should take the given factors discussed above into account, if the town’s trash needs to be collected only once a week, and recently most people are actually not satisfied with EZ, then to choose ABC is a wise decision. On the contrary, if the town’s trash needs collection twice a week, and it is true that most people are satisfied with EZ, although EZ raised monthly fee from $2000 to $2500, it is still worthy. So, more survey are expected to draw the conclusion.

kito9695UID：209685

提纲
（1）市委应该确认是否需要每周收集2次
（2）应确认收集Walnut Grove是否需要20辆卡车或者更多，如果需要，EZ增加的卡车是否用来收集Walnut Grove的垃圾
（3）80%的回答者说满意，可是没有说调查了多少人，调查的人是否代表大多数人的意见，而且那是去年的调查，有可能现在的满意度已经变了。
提纲思路很清晰
**********************************************************
正文（417字）
In this argument, the arguer recommends that the suggestion of Walnut Grove's town council that switching from EZ Disposal to ABC Waste is wrong because although EZ raised its monthly fee from $2000 to $2500, they collects trash twice a week, and they has ordered additional trucks, moreover, according to last year's town survey, 80% of the respondents were satisfied with EZ. The reasoning seems logical, but after a careful examination, we can find several fatal flaws as follows.开头很好

Firstly, the arguer should make sure whether the town's trash needs to be collected twice a week. It's possible that the town does not have lots of trash that needs collectionto be collected twice a week, then可改为if not the service of collection twice a week iswill be a waste, andso collectioncollecting once a week is enough.

Secondly, although EZ has ordered additional trucks, we are not sure if itthey are neededneed. So the arguer should surveyinvestigate how many trucks were used by EZ to collect Walnut Grove's trash. If the number is less than 20, then adding trucks is not necessary. If the trucks are still not enough after 20 trucks are all used, then adding trucks is necessary太罗嗦了，可以去掉. GrantGranted that adding trucks is necessary, the arguer shouldalso affirm whether the new added trucks are used to serve Walnut Grove's trash collection.

Thirdly, the survey's result is also doubtable. It only reveals 80% of respondents were satisfied, but 缺itdoes not indicates how many people took the survey and if they cancould,要用过去时就都用 represent most people's opinion. For example, if the town has 500 residents, but only 20 people took the survey, and 15 people responded, then only 12 people said they are satisfied又啰嗦了. Thus, the survey is invalid. In addition, the survey was conducted last year, and one year pasthas passed, the percent of satisfaction may havebe changed. From above不能两个副词连起来，可以说from the items talked above, the survey cannot be used as evidence.这么说不合适，因该是不具有说服力，而不是不能用作evidence

To sum up, the arguer’s conclusion reached in this argument lacks credibility since all the reasons are not sufficient to support his assertion. He should加个also take the given factors discussed above into account, if the town’s trash needs to be collected only once a week, and recently most people are actually not satisfied with EZ, then to choose ABC is a wise decision. On the contrary, if the town’s trash needs collection twice a week, and it is true that most people are satisfied with EZ, although EZ raised monthly fee from $2000 to $2500, it is still worthy又啰嗦. So, more surveysurveys are expected to draw the conclusion.before drawing the conclusion合适一些

总的来说，思路很清晰，有些小地方需要注意以下，特别是有些同样句式重复造成的“啰嗦”，可以通过第二局的省略等方法改善。

@amy@UID：209096

修改了一下

字数：435字
In this argument, the arguer recommends that the suggestion of Walnut Grove's town council that switching from EZ Disposal to ABC Waste is wrong because although EZ raised its monthly fee from $2000 to $2500, they collects trash twice a week, and they has ordered additional trucks, moreover, according to last year's town survey, 80% of the respondents were satisfied with EZ. The reasoning seems logical, but after a careful examination, we can find several fatal flaws as follows.

Firstly, the arguer should make sure whether the town's trash need to be collected twice a week. It's possible that the town’s trash is not so much that needs to be collected twice a week, or the trash can be kept on good condition and will not pollute the environment, thus the service of collection twice a week is a waste, and in fact collection once a week is enough.

Secondly, although EZ has ordered additional trucks, we are not sure if they are needed. So the arguer should survey how many trucks were used by EZ to collect Walnut Grove's trash during the past years. If the number is less than 20, then adding trucks is not necessary and will do little benefit to the town. Granted that adding trucks is necessary, the arguer should also affirm whether the new added trucks are used to serve Walnut Grove's trash collection. On the other hand, it is very likely that EZ purchased the new trucks to replace old ones and the total number is not increased, thus it is unfair to ask people to pay more money but receive equal service as before.

Thirdly, the survey's result is also doubtable. It only reveals 80% of respondents were satisfied, but does not indicates how many people took the survey and if they could represent most people's opinion. For example, if the town has 500 residents, but only 20 people took the survey, and 15 people responded, thus, the survey is invalid and we can conclude nothing from the result of the survey. In addition, the survey was conducted last year, and one year has past, the percent of satisfaction may have changed. On the other hand, the percent of satisfaction may also descend if the people are notified that EZ will raise the fee for 25%. So the survey is too weak to support the arguer’s conclusion.

To sum up, the arguer’s conclusion reached in this argument lacks credibility since all the reasons are not sufficient to back up his assertion. He should take the given factors discussed above into account, and select a relative suitable service.