Argument17 GOGOGO

加一UID: 2168628

【题目】
Argument17.(总频率35)
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。

OUTLINE:
1. 不知道镇政府的财政预算能否支出这多余的500美元
2．没有证据证明每周收两次垃圾堆越Walnut Grove是必须的
3．文中没有提到额外服务是什么，这些服务很有可能没有实际意义，即使有意义，EZ或许也提供
4．对于EZ的调查可能不具有代表性，而且文中没有提到剩下20%的看法，很可能是“非常差”


      In this argument, the author considers that the Walnut Grove town should cooperate with EZ Disposal continuous to deal with the trash. Because they offer much better services than ABC Waste do, which is an important competitor of EZ Disposal. Although the monthly fee is rising, EZ Disposal should be a good choice. The claim sees to be reasonable at the first glance, but with further analysis, it appears to suffer from several logical fallacies as follows.
    Firstly, we could not know that Walnut Grove's government could afford the bill since the fee is raised from $2,000 to $2,500.If the government of the town has some more significant projects to build, I do not think that they have money to pay the extra $500.Possibly they have large budget deficits and be willing to negotiate with EZ Disposal to reduce the monthly fee. Even if the government is rich, the residents of town may doubt that the service of the EZ Disposal is too expensive and reject the plan.
    And then, there is no evidence to prove that collecting trash twice a week is necessary. As the development of the world, the living standard of people is increasingly improved. The system of sanitation in Walnut Grove may efficient enough to cycle a majority of trash back to our daily life. In that condition, creating enough trash is a little difficult task for the residents of Walnut Grove. It is a kind of waste if they choose the plan that collecting trash twice a week.
    Moreover, the argument does not refer the details of the exceptional service which is offered by EZ Disposal. We could not judge that it is useful or useless. Maybe it is just offer a package of candy to the children. Even if Walnut Grove really needs the services, how could we conclude that ABC Waste would not offer much better services as a gift? So the arguer needs to conduct a survey with more details to prove the advantages of EZ Disposal before writing to the editor of the Walnut Grove town newspaper.
    In an addition, the town survey conducted by last year has something could be questioned. For one thing, the argument does not mention the environment of the survey. If only a short number of people joined in the survey, it is possible that the result is not correct because many of the residents who prefer EZ Disposal are being investigated. For another thing, we do not know the attitude of the other respondents who is not mention in the survey, maybe the performance of EZ Disposal is very bad in their hearts.
    In a sum, the arguer does not consider these and other more details that may influence the services of the collecting trash, we can safely drew the conclusion that more information should be collected before making the final choice.

orange0770UID: 2122654

In this argument, the author considers that the Walnut Grove town should (continuously) cooperate with EZ Disposal continuous to deal with the trash. Because they offer much better services than ABC Waste do, which is an important competitor of EZ Disposal. Although the monthly fee is rising, EZ Disposal should be a good choice. (because …和although…这两句互换一下好吗)The claim sees（seems） to be reasonable at the first glance, but with further analysis, it appears to suffer from several logical fallacies as follows.
    Firstly, we could (do) not know that Walnut Grove's government could afford the bill since the fee is raised from $2,000 to $2,500.If the government of the town has some more significant projects to build, I do not think that (还是不用这种主观色彩的句式吧，they may not have the money ….) they have money to pay the extra $500.Possibly they have large budget deficits and be (are) willing to negotiate with EZ Disposal to reduce the monthly fee. Even if the government is rich(恐怕没有人愿意政府rich吧，那就意味人民很穷，改成even if the budget can cover the fee), the residents of town may doubt that the service of the EZ Disposal is too expensive and reject the plan.
    And then, there is no evidence to prove that collecting trash twice a week is necessary. As (because of , as 当因为讲时应接句子)the development of the world, the living standard of people is increasingly improved. The system of sanitation in Walnut Grove may（be） efficient enough to cycle a majority of trash back to our daily life（back to our daily life是否可以删掉）. In that condition, creating enough trash is a little difficult task for the residents of Walnut Grove.（这句没读懂，不好意思） It is a kind of waste if they choose the plan that collecting trash twice a week.
    Moreover, the argument does not refer （to）the details of the exceptional service which is offered by EZ Disposal. We could not judge that （whether）it is useful or useless. Maybe it is just offer a package of candy to the children. Even if Walnut Grove really needs the services, how could we conclude that ABC Waste would not offer much better services as a gift(bonus 是不是更合适)? So the arguer needs to conduct a survey with more details（detailed survey / investigation）to prove the advantages of EZ Disposal before writing to the editor of the Walnut Grove town newspaper.
    In an ( an 去掉)addition, the town survey conducted by last year has something could be questioned. For one thing, the argument does not mention the environment（background） of the survey. If only a short （small）number of people joined in (join in 指参加某项活动，be included in 好一些)the survey, it is possible that the result is not correct because many of the residents who prefer EZ Disposal are being investigated. For another thing, we do not know the attitude of the other respondents who is not mention(mentioned) in the survey, maybe the performance of EZ Disposal is very bad in their hearts.
    In a sum, the arguer does not consider these and other more (more 去掉)details that may influence the services of the collecting trash, we can safely drew the conclusion that more information should be collected before making the final choice.

orange0770UID: 2122654

楼主分析得很全面，把主要的错误都找出来了，特别是注意了句子之间的连接，这点很难得的。分析的逻辑也很清晰，只是结尾再详细一点，整篇文章会更完整。