argument17 (Coffee小组) 完成作业咯----

shielUID：2140229

感觉写得太简单了--------

[题目]
17.The following appeared in a letter to the editor of the Walnut Grove town newspaper. (考频29)

"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."

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。


[攻击点]：
a. Walnut Grove's town council更换trash collection services的原因可能不仅仅是收费问题，我们需要从Walnut Grove's town council方面得到详细理由。
b. 收集的次数多并不能说明什么问题，除非有理由表明Walnut Grove's town的垃圾产生量很大，速度也很快，非常需要高频率收集，否则就不能构成评价2家trash collection service的标准。何况次数并不代表质量
c. 卡车的数量多并不能表明EZ可以为Walnut Grove's town提供更优质的服务，除非EZ的全部卡车只为Walnut Grove's town服务，不去为其他地方或其他事物服务。当然，2家trash collection services的卡车的大小、性能不一定一样，也不能比，或者EZ是近期要报废一批卡车才买了新的。
d. 这个调查更缺乏说服力，谁做了调查？调查了多少人？满意的标准是什么？再者，这只是对EZ的评价，怎么跟ABC对比，又怎么知道ABC会不会比EZ做得更令人满意呢？

[字数]：409 words

[正文]

The letter opposes the advocacy of Walnut Grove's town council since the alteration of trash collection services, and cites some unpersuasive evidence to suggest that Walnut Grove should continue using EZ Disposal rather than ABC Waste. To justify this claim, the arguer points out that
Walnut Grove's town council only have taken the monthly fee into account, however, may neglect other more significant advantages due to keep on served by EZ Disposal.

Primarily, the argument is based on a simple assumption that the town council have not considered comprehensive factors besides EZ’s monthly fee is higher than ABC’s. Perhaps it was advocated after sufficient investigation and contrast which is more comprehensive than the arguer has done.

Secondly, it may be so much important of trash collection’s frequency, unless Walnut Grove produce garbage quickly and excessively. Without concrete proof, we do not know the actual conditions of the town, so whether twice a week is actually needed remain in doubt. If not, it would be a waste of materials and money. Accordingly, it is imprudently to judge by the times of trash collection in a week, thus think EZ as a good choice.

Thirdly, more trunks do not mean more effective service, excepting EZ’s whole fleet is exclusive for Walnut Grove. At the same time, there is not information to show us whether the size, performance and so forth are alike. Quantity does not equal to quality. Or EZ has ordered additional trucks just because they will retire several trunks.

In addition, the result of last year's town survey about EZ's performance is too vague. How many residents were involved? Who did the survey? What are the standers of to be satisfied? In the absence these data, the result of the survey lacks credibility and therefore could not lend strong support to the arguer’s conclusion. Another point worth doubtful is the object of the survey just included EZ, in other words, we are impossible to compare ABC with EZ from this survey, then how can we conclude that ABC’s service are worse than EZ’s?

As it stands, the argument is not well reasoned. To make it logically acceptable, the arguer would demonstrate that the advocacy of the town council lack further consideration, and Walnut Grove really in need of trash collection must twice a week. Moreover, the arguer should give details about current fleet’s condition both of EZ and ABC, the survey is also too rough to support arguer’s claim.

黄川UID：2168599

占座。