argument17 第2篇 GOGOGO！

azaleaUID: 196122

argument17
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."

1每周收2次未必比1次效果好
2增加卡车未必有必要 即使有必要未必ABC不会增加
3survey的结果没有全给出 因此不能说明EZ好
4公司的质量还受其他因素影响 应做全面比较


The author suggests that we should continue using EZ Disposal instead of ABC waste, regardless of EZ's recent increase of monthly fee. However, the evidence given cannot support this argument.

In the first place, the author does not prove that collecting trash twice a week as EZ does is in deed superior to collecting once as ABC does. Although EZ collects trash twice as often as ABC, the actual results may not differ. Maybe the residents in Walnut Grove do not produce much trash, therefore collecting once a week is enough. Recessive collection may be a waste of resources, which are likely to account for the higher fee of EZ compared to ABC.  

Moreover, that EZ has ordered additional trucks does not give it an advantage over ABC as the author assumes. Probably there is no requirement for new trucks in the town, as no increase of population or waste is mentioned in the argument. EZ used to operate with a fleet of 20 trucks, the same as ABC, so we can infer that 20 trucks were enough for efficient trash collection. The increase of truck number may do nothing more than increasing the monthly fee. Unless the author proves that trash produced by residents has increased, his/her argument is plausible. Even though a need for additional trucks really exists, the order of EZ for trucks is not that important in selecting EZ out. We do not know when the ordered trucks will be in operation, possibly in more than one year, so what's the difference between EZ and ABC in this year? Also, we cannot rule out the possibility that ABC will order extra trucks too. In this sense, EZ may not be a good choice considering its higher fee.

In addition, the author's citation of last year's town survey is not at all convictive. We do not know whether the respondents were representative of the whole residents in that town. If they were all from a same community, where EZ's service was better than elsewhere, the result may be partial. Even if the respondents were selected randomly and widely, the statistics that 80 percent of them were satisfied with EZ's performance does not prove anything. The author does not show what percentage of respondents was satisfied with ABC's performance. If the percentage was higher than 80 per cent, ABC would turn out to be a better choice. What matters is not the exact percentage but the relative evaluation towards the two trash collecting companies.

Finally, we cannot deny that qualities of trash collecting companies are not confined to the aspects mentioned above. Trash collecting speed, treating methods of disposals and attitude are also important factors. To substantiate this argument, the author should make an objective and all-round comparison between the two companies.

65min 464words

yunziluoUID: 2164829

argument17
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."

1每周收2次未必比1次效果好
2增加卡车未必有必要 即使有必要未必ABC不会增加
3survey的结果没有全给出 因此不能说明EZ好
4公司的质量还受其他因素影响 应做全面比较

The author suggests that we should continue using EZ Disposal instead of ABC waste, regardless of EZ's recent increase of monthly fee. However, the evidence given cannot support this argument.（第一段写得好简练！！弱问一下，简短开头是不是更好，看范文里那些开头都挺长的。）

In the first place, the author does not prove that collecting trash twice a week as EZ does is in deed superior to collecting once as ABC does. Although EZ collects trash twice as often as ABC, the actual results may not differ. Maybe the residents in Walnut Grove do not produce much trash, therefore collecting once a week is enough. Recessive（个人觉得此词不是很准确，redundant/unnecessarily是否号一些） collection may be a waste of resources, which are likely to account for the higher fee of EZ compared to ABC.  

Moreover, that EZ has ordered additional trucks does not give it an advantage over ABC as the author assumes. Probably there is no requirement for new trucks in the town, as no increase of population or waste is mentioned in the argument. EZ used to operate with a fleet of 20 trucks, the same as ABC, so we can infer that 20 trucks were enough for efficient trash collection. The increase of truck number may do nothing more than increasing the monthly fee. Unless the author proves that trash produced by residents has increased, his/her argument is plausible. Even though a need for additional trucks really exists, the order of EZ for trucks is not that important in selecting EZ out. We do not know when the ordered trucks will be in operation, possibly in more than one year, so what's the difference between EZ and ABC in this year? Also, we cannot rule out the possibility that ABC will order extra trucks too. In this sense, EZ may not be a good choice considering its higher fee.(感觉本段的结构很有层次！不过阐述垃圾可能没有增加时，有些重复。)
In addition, the author's citation of last year's town survey is not at all convictive. We do not know whether the respondents were representative of the whole residents in that town. If they were all from a same community, where EZ's service was better than elsewhere, the result may be partial. Even if the respondents were selected randomly and widely, the statistics that 80 percent of them were satisfied with EZ's performance does not prove anything. The author does not show what percentage of respondents was satisfied with ABC's performance. If the percentage was higher than 80 per cent, ABC would turn out to be a better choice. What matters is not the exact percentage but the relative evaluation towards the two trash collecting companies.

Finally, we cannot deny that qualities of trash collecting companies are not confined to the aspects mentioned above. Trash collecting speed, treating methods of disposals and attitude are also important factors. To substantiate this argument, the author should make an objective and all-round comparison between the two companies.（结尾是否有些仓促？是否应该总结一下全文。）

65min 464words

[ Last edited by yunziluo on 2005-12-22 at 12:35 ]

azaleaUID: 196122

谢谢砖头！

我中间有点罗嗦了 所以开头结尾就写的比较短了 不然字数太多了哦

我看过一本官方AW的教材，说开头可长可短 因为不作为评分依据
如果正文比较长，开头可以一句话：
This arguments suffer from several major flaws as follows. 然后不要换行继续写正文。

昏倒，，
我这里只是取其精髓啦~

中间那个recessive真晕 是我写错了 我本来要写excessive 昨晚太昏迷了 汗。。
你看得真仔细啊 赞~

其实为了凑字数 就是翻来覆去说啦 没关系的哦

[ Last edited by azalea on 2005-12-22 at 17:08 ]

azaleaUID: 196122

The author suggests that we should continue using EZ Disposal instead of ABC waste, regardless of (学习ing)[汗。。]EZ's recent increase of monthly fee. However, the evidence given cannot support this argument.

In the first place, the author does not prove that collecting trash twice a week as EZ does is in deed superior to collecting once as ABC does. Although EZ collects trash twice as often as ABC, the actual results may not differ. Maybe the residents in Walnut Grove do not produce much trash, therefore collecting once a week is enough. Recessive collection may be a waste of resources, which are likely to account for(也可用contribute to)[赞啊！我当时就是没想起来 我都想到atribute to了 觉得不对！就差一点啊] the higher fee of EZ compared to ABC.  

Moreover, that EZ has ordered additional trucks does not give it an advantage over(好句子,当时我写到这得时候,怎么也想不到这个短语啊)[再汗。。我也是随便写的 不是觉得好才写的。。] ABC as the author assumes. Probably there is no requirement for new trucks in the town, as no increase of population or waste is mentioned in the argument. EZ used to operate with a fleet of 20 trucks, the same as ABC, so we can infer that 20 trucks were enough for efficient trash collection. The increase of truck number may do nothing more than (好啊)increasing the monthly fee. Unless the author proves that trash produced by residents has increased(和第一个收集频率也提到垃圾是否增加是否重复)[好意见！不过我也不知道], his/her argument is plausible. Even though a need for additional trucks really exists, the order of EZ for trucks is not that important in selecting EZ out.(美中不足,这个句子还可以在改写一下,尤其似乎那个select out,记得有个gre词可以很好的表达这个意思的,但我现在想不起来)[是啊 我急死了 写的时候就是想不起来 明明就在脑子里！或者换个说法吧 the order for trucks of EZ does not make it stand out唉 还是想不出我想写的那个词] We do not know when the trucks ordered ( 觉得放在后面顺点)[恩恩 有道理！]will be in operation, possibly in more than one year, so what's the difference between EZ and ABC in this year? Also, we cannot rule out the possibility that ABC will order extra trucks too.(填上这句话,不错,)[你说的改进技术&增加人手也有道理的 我都没想到 赞的] In this sense, EZ may not be a good choice considering its higher fee.

In addition, the author's citation of last year's town survey is not at all convictive. We do not know whether the respondents were representative of the whole residents in that town. If they were all from a same community, where EZ's service was better than elsewhere, the result may be partial. Even if the respondents were selected(少了谓语了 are )[没少哦 你仔细看看哈] randomly and widely, the statistics that 80 percent of them were satisfied with EZ's performance does not prove anything. The author does not show what percentage of respondents was satisfied with ABC's performance. If the percentage was higher than 80 per cent, ABC would turn out to be a better choice. What matters is not the exact percentage but the relative evaluation towards the two trash collecting companies. (这个观点好,提出缺少ABC的相关统计数据).关于survey的分析很好啊,先是代表性,然后就是说80%是个想对概念,说实话这个数字的想对概念不相对概念的,我还没与接触过不是很懂啊. 呵呵[@@我也是随便写的 没看过一篇范文的说 汗死。。千万别信我啊]

Finally, we cannot deny that qualities of trash collecting companies are not confined to the aspects mentioned above. Trash collecting speed, treating methods of disposals and attitude are also important factors. To substantiate this argument, the author should make an objective and all-round comparison between the two companies.

65min 464words

-----------------------------------------------------------------
因为我是刚开始学习写作文, 主要是处于学习阶段, 呵呵 可能提不出很好的意见(当然也是你写的很好了),下面就总结一下,然后提几个小问题了
1.简单几句话,支出不足,提出观点 .regardless of 用得很好,小巧但确表达到了意思
2.学习短语in deed superior to ;give it an advantage over;

[我昏倒了。。]
------------------------------------------------------
小意见:第一段第二段论证的时候都提到了居民可能不会有那么多垃圾,不知道算不算重复!  呵呵
[恩 好意见！ 不过我真的不知道哦 因为是做2个分论点的论据 而这2个论点恰恰都受这个因素影响啊 请高人指点！]

happy_shirleyUID: 2155516

大家都拍得好认真呀！加油！

azaleaUID: 196122

组长 看看4楼最后一句那个问题！

azaleaUID: 196122

In the second place, the author supported this recommendation with the result of last year's town survey, which pointed that 80 percent of respondents were content with EZ’s performance. However, it is insufficient to draw the conclusion that the service offered by ABC will be not as good as that of EZ. Since in the past ten years trash collection in Walnut Grove was served by EZ only, people did not have chance to compare EZ’s performance with others’. (这点提得很好，我怎么没想到呢？)Perhaps, ABC can supply the same service as EZ did or even better. In that case, less service fee is a significant factor to consider.

     In the third place, as the development of society, environmental protection has been paying (是不是应该改为paid)ｍore and more attention. How to treat with the trash is one of the important issues, which is not to be sneezed at. Accordingly, for the developing of Walnut Grove in a long run, the approaches through that EZ and ABC deal with the collected trash must be compared. The one that is propitious to environmental protection should take precedence to be considered.
(这一点提得很有新意，也很与实际相结合)