argument17 谢谢大家了！交晚了，自我批评！！

智恩UID：2160717

"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."

提纲：1 没有证据说WG市需要一星期送两次垃圾。
         2没有说新买的拖拉机是用于WG市的
         3 调查有问题

正文：（419个字）

This argument recommends that Walnut Grove’s town should continue to have the contract for trash collection services from EZ Disposal in spite of the increasing fee. To support the author’s recommendation he points out that EZ Disposal collects trash twice a week, while ABC Waste whose fee does not increase collects only once. The author also claims that EZ Disposal has ordered additional trucks. Thus the number of EZ Disposal’s truck will be more than ABC Waste’s. What is more, the author cites a survey showing that 80 percent of respondents agreed that they were “satisfied” with EZ Disposal’s performance. This argument is ostensibly logical, however, close scrutiny of this argument reveals a number of flaws, which render it unconvincing.

To begin with, no evidence is offered to support that Walnut Grove’s town need trash collection twice a week. It is entirely possible that it is sufficient for Walnut Grove’s town to collect trash once a week. If so, there is no need to pay more money to continue using EZ Disposal’s trash collection service.

In the second place, the author fails to provide evidence to support that additional new trucks will be used to collect Walnut Grove’s trash. Perhaps the additional trucks are not prepared for Walnut Grove town’s trash collection. Without considering and ruling out this possibility, the author’s recommendation is indefensible.

Finally, the survey that this argument cites is potentially problematic in a number of respects. First, we are not informed whether the survey’s respondents were representative of the overall population of residents in Walnut Grave town. Second, the survey reflects 80 percent of respondents satisfied with EZ Disposal’s performance. Yet it is entirely possible that the service quality of ABC Waste is as well as EZ Disposal’s. Residents of Walnut Grave town do not get information about the ABC Waste’s trash collection quality. The mere fact that 80 percent of respondents satisfied with EZ Disposal’s performance could not lend significant support to the author’s recommendation.

To sum up, this argument is unconvincing as it stands. To strengthen it, the author must provide evidence that it is more effective for the Walnut Grave town to collect trash twice a week. To better evaluate this argument, the author must provide evidence that additional trucks will be used to collect Walnut Grave town’s trash which is more favored for Walnut Grave town. Finally, to bolster this recommendation, this argument should offer evidence to substantiate the survey is representative enough to reflect the overall population of Walnut Grave’s residents.

@amy@UID：209096

This argument recommends that Walnut Grove’s town should continue to have the contract for trash collection services from EZ Disposal in spite of the increasing fee. To support the author’s recommendation he points out that EZ Disposal collects trash twice a week, while ABC Waste whose fee does not increase collects only once. The author also claims that EZ Disposal has ordered additional trucks. Thus the number of EZ Disposal’s truck will be more than ABC Waste’s. What is more, the author cites a survey showing that 80 percent of respondents agreed that they were “satisfied” with EZ Disposal’s performance. This argument is ostensibly logical, however, close scrutiny of this argument reveals a number of flaws, which render it unconvincing.

To begin with, no evidence is offered to support that Walnut Grove’s town need(needs) trash collection twice a week. It is entirely possible that it is sufficient for Walnut Grove’s town to collect trash once a week. If so, there is no need to pay more money to continue using EZ Disposal’s trash collection service.

In the second place, the author fails to provide evidence to support that (加上those) additional new trucks will be used to collect Walnut Grove’s trash. Perhaps the additional trucks are not prepared for Walnut Grove town’s trash collection. Without considering and ruling out this possibility, the author’s recommendation is indefensible.

Finally, the survey that this argument cites is potentially problematic in a number of respects. First, we are not informed whether the survey’s respondents were representative of the overall population of residents in Walnut Grave town. Second, the survey reflects 80 percent of respondents satisfied with EZ Disposal’s performance. Yet it is entirely possible that the service quality of ABC Waste is as well as EZ Disposal’s. Residents of Walnut Grave town do not get information about the ABC Waste’s trash collection quality. The mere fact that 80 percent of respondents satisfied with EZ Disposal’s performance could not lend significant support to the author’s recommendation.

To sum up, this argument is unconvincing as it stands. To strengthen it, the author must provide evidence that it is more effective for the Walnut Grave town to collect trash twice a week. To better evaluate this argument, the author must provide evidence that additional trucks will be used to collect Walnut Grave town’s trash which(that) is more favored for Walnut Grave town. Finally, to bolster this recommendation, this argument should offer evidence to substantiate the survey is representative enough to reflect the overall population of Walnut Grave’s residents.

思路挺清晰的，而且句式变化也挺多，没有发现几个问题，我要向你学习，呵呵

[ Last edited by @amy@ on 2005-12-17 at 14:33 ]