Argument11【0706G－~4而后生~小组】第4次作业 by nap 有拍必回

napUID: 196976

TOPIC: ARGUMENT11 - The following appeared in a memo from the mayor of the town of West Egg.
修改过
"Two years ago, our consultants predicted that West Egg's landfill, which is used for garbage disposal, would be completely filled within five years. During the past two years, however, town residents have been recycling twice as much aluminum and paper as they did in previous years. Next month the amount of material recycled should further increase, since charges for garbage pickup will double. Furthermore, over ninety percent of the respondents to a recent survey said that they would do more recycling in the future. Because of our residents' strong commitment to recycling, the available space in our landfill should last for considerably longer than predicted."
WORDS: 429->485          TIME: 0:26:07          DATE: 2007-3-12

The memo argues that their landfill will last longer than predicted. To support this argument, the author mentions that town residents had been recycling twice as much aluminum and paper as they did in previous years. Besides, the amount of material recycled next month should increase because of the charges' doubling. Finally, a recent survey indicated that over ninety percent of the respondents said that they would do more recycling later. The argument should not be concluded so hasty in that there are some flaws in it.

The first fallacy is that the author only mentions two kinds of material. The common sense tells us that there are many kinds of material that can be recycled such as iron. The author, however, cites that only two kinds of material is recycled greatly rather other material. It is possible that in this town the use of aluminum and paper increased while that of iron decreased. For example, if the citizens found that they can replace iron by aluminum. Thus, with the increasing use of aluminum and paper while the decreasing of iron, the total amount of recyclable material remains the same.

Besides, the growing amount of recycling material does not mean that the amount of trash decreased. Maybe the main reason of growing is that citizens tended to consumes more. Because of the higher quality of living, these citizens might waste a lot of material including recyclable kinds which is certainly recycled by the residents. Thus, the total amount of trash grew.

In addition, the author does not make us believe that the garbage charges' doubling may lead to the increase of recycling. If the local citizen's income dramatically increases, they may be able to send their rubbish to the garbage and the charge's doubling makes no effect. Or if there are more than one garbage, the local citizen sends their rubbish to the other one because of the high price of current garbage and thus the result is uncertain.

Finally, the author only survey insufficient amount of sample. When that survey only mentioned the respondents taking into consideration, the number of respondents may be very low and we can not conclude the result from this insufficient evidence. In some cases, maybe the ones who are not willing to recycle will refuse to response the survey. In addition, the author does not mention the bound of the survey and maybe the survey was made in a small part of people. Thus, the survey is not convincible.

In sum, because the argument contains some fallacies the author can not conclude that their landfill will last longer. To support this point, the author should make an overall investigation to the material. Besides, the author should provide sufficient evidences supporting the conclusion that charges for garbage's doubling will lead people to recycle more. Additionally, the author should make a broader survey to the intention of people of the recycling.

[ 本帖最后由 nap 于 2007-3-14 06:55 编辑 ]

insideUID: 2303230

The memo argues that their landfill will last longer than predicted. To support this argument, the author mentions that town residents had been recycling twice as much aluminum and paper as they did in previous years. Besides, the amount of material recycled next month should increase because of the charges' doubling. Finally, a recent survey indicated that over ninety percent of the respondents said that they would do more recycling later. The argument should not be concluded so hasty in that there are some flaws in it.

The first fallacy is that the author only mentions two kinds of material. The common sense tells us that there are many kinds of material that can be recycled such as iron（非常具体！好！）. The author, however, cites that only two kinds of material is recycled greatly rather other material. It is possible that in this town the use of aluminum and paper increased while that of iron decreased. For example, if the citizens found that they can replace iron by aluminum. Thus, with the increasing use of aluminum and paper while the decreasing of iron, the total amount of recyclable material remains the same.

Besides, the growing amount of recycling material does not mean that the amount of trash decreased. Maybe the main reason of growing is that citizens tended to consumes more. Because of the higher quality of living, these citizens wasted（建议将时态统一一下） a lot of material including recyclable kinds which is certainly recycled by the residents. Thus, the total amount of trash grew.

In addition, the author does not make us believe that the garbage charges' doubling may lead to the increase of recycling. If the local citizen's income dramatically increases, they may be able to send their rubbish to the garbage and the charge's doubling makes no effect. Or if there are more than one garbage, the local citizen sends their rubbish to the other one because of the high price of current garbage and thus the result is uncertain.（我觉得他们应该是把垃圾放在门口，然后收垃圾的过来取，然后再收取一些费用，所谓pickup费是也。所以你说的这个问题可能不太现实。）

Finally, the author only survey insufficient amount of sample. The survey only mentioned the respondents.（这句超短，建议和后面的合并一下） However, the number of respondents may be very low and we can not conclude the result from this insufficient evidence. In some cases, maybe the ones who are not willing to recycle will refuse to response the survey. In addition, the author does not mention the bound of the survey and maybe the survey was made in a small part of people. Thus, the survey is not convincible.

In sum, because the argument contains some fallacies the author can not conclude that their landfill will last longer. To support this point, the author should make an overall investigation to the material. Besides, the author should provide sufficient evidences supporting the conclusion that charges for garbage's doubling will lead people to recycle more. Additionally, the author should make a broader survey to the intention of people of the recycling.

逻辑上没有什么问题。
我的同主题文，呵呵：https://bbs.gter.net/viewthread.php?tid=626915&extra=page%3D1

潘猫UID: 2238279

本来想改来着,发现已经是修改过的了...><
修改过的我觉得米什么大问题啦,楼主的argue结构和逻辑感觉已经很成熟了,而且26分钟实在是太让人羡慕了,学习.