argument17 【加州阳光】第三次作业~想拍就拍

benniUID: 2166321

1、无理假设：需要清理两次
2、无据推理：卡车多了工作一定更好
3、无效调查：人数 代表性



The author of the letter to the editor of the Walnut Grove town newspaper conclude that the town council of Walnut Grove should continue using EZ Disposal rather than switching to ABC. To support the conclusion, the arguer cites the following facts: (1) EZ collects trash twice per week, whereas ABC collects only once per week; (2) EZ will own more trucks than ABC will although both companies have the same number of trucks, EZ has ordered more ones; and (3) a survey shows that 80 percent of respondents are satisfied with EZ's performance. Close scrutiny these facts, however, reveals that none of them lend credence to the speaker's conclusion.

As for the first fact that EZ collects trash more frequently than ABC does, the author potentially unfoundedly assumes that the trash in the Walnut Grove do need to be collected twice per week. However, it is not necessarily the case. Perhaps the number of residents in Walnut Grove is not as large as that of other clients of EZ and consequently once a week collecting is completely enough. Even assuming that there are many residents and lot of trash in Walnut Grove, it is entirely possible that the employees of ABC who with higher cleaning technique than those of EZ can effectively dispose all the trash one time a week.

Secondly, more trucks do no necessarily indicate that EZ would be more effective or offer higher-quality service than ABC, as the speaker attempt to make us to believe. It is possible that although EZ will own take advantage over ABC in the number of trucks, ABC' trucks are much larger than those of EZ. Moreover, It is more likely that the trucks recently ordered by EZ will work for other districts rather than Walnut Grove. In a word, the recommendation finds no support from more trucks of EZ.

Finally, the survey mentioned in the letter is too vague to be informative. Why? Because the author fails to inform me whether the respondents constitute a large enough sample so as to be representative of all the residents in Walnut Grove. Perhaps although 80 percent of respondents are satisfied with EZ’s work, just ten people participated in the poll, which leads to an invalid survey. Moreover, the author should conduct a survey about the ABC’s service among residents, it is entirely possible that 90 percent of residents support the final decision of the town council after they compare EZ’ work with ABC’s. In absence of the specific information of the survey, it is impossible for me to assess the speaker’s recommendation.

In sum, the recommendation relies on several suspicious assumptions which render it unconvincing as it stands. To bolster the argument, the author must provide more clear evidence—perhaps by way of a valid local survey—that residents in Walnut Grove indeed satisfied with EZ’s service. To better evaluate the recommendation, I would need to know whether twice a week collecting is necessary for Walnut Grove and whether the recently ordered trucks would promote EZ’s work.


终于完了...睡

[ 本帖最后由 11yaoyao 于 2006-6-16 23:04 编辑 ]

jj7710UID: 204058

1、无理假设：需要清理两次
2、无据推理：卡车多了工作一定更好
3、无效调查：人数 代表性



The author of the letter to the editor of the Walnut Grove town newspaper conclude（concludes） that the town council of Walnut Grove should continue using EZ Disposal rather than switching to ABC. To support the conclusion, the arguer cites the following facts: (1) EZ collects trash twice per week, whereas ABC collects only once per week; (2) EZ will own more trucks than ABC will although both companies have the same number of trucks,（这两句话之间应该加个连词吧，and） EZ has ordered more ones; and (3) a survey shows that 80 percent of respondents are satisfied with EZ's performance. Close scrutiny（scutiny是名词，应改为scrutinizing） these facts, however, reveals that none of them lend credence to the speaker's conclusion.

As for the first fact that EZ collects trash more frequently than ABC does, the author potentially unfoundedly assumes that the trash in the Walnut Grove do need to be collected twice per week. However, it is not necessarily the case. Perhaps the number of residents in Walnut Grove is not as large as that of other clients of EZ and consequently once a week collecting is completely enough. Even assuming that there are many residents and lot of trash in Walnut Grove, it is entirely possible that the employees of ABC who with（have） higher cleaning technique than those of EZ can effectively dispose all the trash one time a week.

Secondly, more trucks do no necessarily indicate that EZ would be more effective or offer higher-quality service than ABC, as the speaker attempt to make us to （to 去掉）believe. It is possible that although EZ will own take advantage over ABC in the number of trucks,（这句的结构没看懂，will own 和take advantage是两个谓语吧） ABC' trucks are much larger than those of EZ. Moreover, It is more likely that the trucks recently ordered by EZ will work for other districts rather than Walnut Grove. In a word, the recommendation finds（receives） no support from more trucks of EZ.

Finally, the survey mentioned in the letter is too vague to be informative. Why? Because the author fails to inform me（建议改为the readers） whether the respondents constitute a large enough sample so as to be representative of all the residents in Walnut Grove. Perhaps although 80 percent of respondents are satisfied with EZ’s work, just ten people participated in the poll, which leads to an invalid survey. Moreover, the author should conduct a survey about the ABC’s service among residents, it is entirely possible that 90 percent of residents support the final decision of the town council after they compare EZ’ work with ABC’s. In absence of the specific information of the survey, it is impossible for me to assess the speaker’s recommendation.

In sum, the recommendation relies on several suspicious assumptions which render it unconvincing as it stands. To bolster the argument, the author must provide more clear evidence—perhaps by （the）way of a valid local survey—that residents in Walnut Grove indeed （缺谓语，are）satisfied with EZ’s service. To better evaluate the recommendation, I would need to know whether twice a week collecting is necessary for Walnut Grove and whether the recently ordered trucks would promote EZ’s work.

观点鲜明，论证清楚。
生病了也能写出这么好的文章，小女子佩服！

benniUID: 2166321

谢拍，非常认真！下面回应一下：

1、第一段加连词的地方，由于前面用了although，所以不用加连词了
2、close scrutiny后面我少加了个of，太大意了。（如果改为scrutinying，前面的close要变为closely）
3、关于那个will own...纯属笔误...汗