Argument17 【0710G-小猪快跑小组】第2次作业 By Shalonbas_ABC_Vs_Ez

shalonbasUID: 2184474

TOPIC: 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."
WORDS: 503          TIME: 50min          DATE: 2007-7-22

The author of this letter claims that the town council should sign the contract with EZ Disposal, because it collects the trash more frequently, possesses more trucks and provides good service based on a last year’s survey, despite that the monthly fee of EZ is much higher than that of ABC. In my opinion, this argument is logically unconvincing due to in three critical respects as follows.

First of all, the author makes a hasty conclusion that the council switches to ABC Waste because of the lower monthly fee. Without a thorough investigation, it is not safe to conclude that the expense is the key to this decision. It is quite possible that the reason of the switching is due to the disposal methods of these two companies. The ABC Waste might has just shift to a novel disposal method that will not cause environmental pollution, while EZ Disposal still simply treat the trash by burying into the underground or burning in the open air, like they did ten years ago.  Therefore, it is much better to adopt ABC Waste's disposal method, regardless of the monthly fee.

Secondly, the author claims that EZ is superior to ABC because they collect trash twice a week and they will possess more trucks than ABC Waste. The higher frequency does not necessarily lead to better service, for it might be possible that once a week is sufficient to collect the trash in time for ABC, because it can provide their customers better dustbins that can protect the trash from decomposing in one week, while EZ can not stick to conventional trash bags and hence has to collect the trash twice a week. As a result, EZ Disposal needs more trucks than ABC Waste to fulfill this frequency and hence has to raise its monthly fee, while ABC can remain at a lower cost thanks to its advanced disposal method.

Thirdly, the authors judges that EZ provides exceptional service based on a last year's survey, which is not convincing because that survey can not prove whether the respondents are still satisfied with EZ's performance. It is quite possible that the people in the town become unsatisfied with EZ due to its disposal method after they realized the importance of environmental pollution this year, and hence suggest the council to switch to a new company. Furthermore, there is no solid evidence showing that ABC can not provide good performance. It is quite possible that the advocating rate for ABC is much higher than that of EZ because it adopts high-tech disposal method which is not only friendly to the environment but also good to cut their costs, which in turn lower the monthly fee.

To sum up, the author draws a hasty conclusion before he thoroughly compares the two disposal companies. In order to support his idea, he should not only cover the expense, collection frequency, or the truck number of the companies, but pay more attention to the effectiveness and the consequence of choosing the disposal company.


我感觉，和ISSUE相比，ARGUMENT的模板化应该更重一些才是，可怜我现在每次都要当场想句子，辛苦而且效果也不好，唉~~~

Shania.33UID: 2363464

The author of this letter claims that the town council should sign the contract with EZ Disposal, because it collects the trash more frequently, possesses more trucks and provides good service based on a last year’s survey, despite that the monthly fee of EZ is much higher than that of ABC. In my opinion, this argument is logically unconvincing due to in three critical respects as follows.（简洁利索，我怎么就写不简洁呢？唉～～）

First of all, the author makes a hasty conclusion that the council switches to ABC Waste because of the lower monthly fee. Without a thorough investigation, it is not safe to conclude that the expense is the key to this decision. It is quite possible that the reason of the switching is due to the disposal methods of these two companies. The ABC Waste might has just shift to a novel disposal method that will not cause environmental pollution, while EZ Disposal still simply treat the trash by burying into the underground or burning in the open air, like they did ten years ago. （不是很理解此句的意思，ABC究竟新在哪里？感觉不是很有力） Therefore, it is much better to adopt ABC Waste's disposal method, regardless of the monthly fee.

Secondly, the author claims that EZ is superior to ABC because they（为何不是It?只是一个EZ公司啊，they第一眼感觉是两家一起）collect trash twice a week and they will possess more trucks than ABC Waste. The higher frequency does not necessarily lead to better service, for it might be possible that once a week is sufficient to collect the trash in time for ABC, because it can provide their customers better dustbins that can protect the trash from decomposing in one week, while EZ can not stick to conventional trash bags and hence has to collect the trash twice a week. As a result, EZ Disposal needs more trucks than ABC Waste to fulfill this frequency and hence has to raise its monthly fee, while ABC can remain at a lower cost thanks to its advanced disposal method.Thirdly, the authors judges that EZ provides exceptional service based on a last year's survey, which is not convincing because that survey can not prove whether the respondents are still satisfied with EZ's performance. It is quite possible that the people in the town become unsatisfied with EZ due to its disposal method after they realized the importance of environmental pollution this year, and hence suggest the council to switch to a new company. （很可能是人们认识到EZ不好而建议政府换一个新的公司，我觉得这句和前句的调查数据模糊，衔接的非常不自然。如果一定要这么写，加个连接词如what’s more是不是好一点？并且前面的数据模糊，为什么不论述的再充分一点呢？这是ETS给我们明显的送分点啊？不能辜负他们的用意，只一句带过吧？有点赶紧带过奔赴下个攻击点的匆忙感）

Furthermore, there is no solid evidence showing that ABC can not provide good performance. It is quite possible that the advocating rate for ABC is much higher than that of EZ because it adopts high-tech disposal method which is not only friendly to the environment but also good to cut their costs, which in turn lower the monthly fee.

To sum up, the author draws a hasty conclusion before he thoroughly compares the two disposal companies. In order to support his idea, he should not only cover the expense, collection frequency, or the truck number of the companies, but pay more attention to the effectiveness and the consequence of choosing the disposal company.

改by Shania  07.7.23

[ 本帖最后由 Shania.33 于 2007-7-23 12:43 编辑 ]

aashunUID: 2362747

The author of this letter claims that the town council should sign the contract with EZ Disposal, because it collects the trash more frequently, possesses more trucks and provides good service based on a last year’s survey, despite that the monthly fee of EZ is much higher than that of ABC. In my opinion, this argument is logically unconvincing due to in three critical respects as follows.
[开头不错！很标准的结论和条件陈列！]

First of all, the author makes a hasty conclusion that the council switches to ABC Waste because of the lower monthly fee. [恩 费用] Without a thorough investigation, it is not safe to conclude that the expense is the key to this decision. It is quite possible that the reason of the switching is due to the disposal methods of these two companies. [The ABC Waste might has just shift to a novel disposal method that will not cause environmental pollution, while EZ Disposal still simply treat the trash by burying into the underground or burning in the open air, like they did ten years ago.对此点 我持有保留意见 因为比较也会存在一个是否有可比性的问题 argument中不是也有一种比较错误吗？在费用上，不同时间，不同空间，不同方式，就会不同 但是从另外一个方面说 处理垃圾的方式不同 导致费用不同似乎又是合理的 感觉有点矛盾~ 个人意见而已]  Therefore, it is much better to adopt ABC Waste's disposal method, regardless of the monthly fee.

Secondly, the author claims that EZ is superior to ABC because they collect trash twice a week and they will possess more trucks than ABC Waste. [恩 频率] The higher frequency does not necessarily lead to better service, for it might be possible that once a week is sufficient to collect the trash in time for ABC, because it can provide their customers better dustbins that can protect the trash from decomposing in one week, while EZ can not stick to conventional trash bags and hence has to collect the trash twice a week. As a result, EZ Disposal needs more trucks than ABC Waste to fulfill this frequency and hence has to raise its monthly fee, while ABC can remain at a lower cost thanks to its advanced disposal method. [同意！]

Thirdly, the authors judges that EZ provides exceptional service based on a last year's survey, which is not convincing because that survey can not prove whether the respondents are still satisfied with EZ's performance. It is quite possible that the people in the town become unsatisfied with EZ due to its disposal method after they realized the importance of environmental pollution this year, and hence suggest the council to switch to a new company. Furthermore, there is no solid evidence showing that ABC can not provide good performance. It is quite possible that the advocating rate for ABC is much higher than that of EZ because it adopts high-tech disposal method which is not only friendly to the environment but also good to cut their costs, which in turn lower the monthly fee. [不多说了 很多argument都会有survey poll investigation 这种词语 遇到就死批]

To sum up, the author draws a hasty conclusion before he thoroughly compares the two disposal companies. In order to support his idea, he should not only cover the expense, collection frequency, or the truck number of the companies, but pay more attention to the effectiveness and the consequence of choosing the disposal company.

我感觉，和ISSUE相比，ARGUMENT的模板化应该更重一些才是，可怜我现在每次都要当场想句子，辛苦而且效果也不好，唉~~~
[早点形成自己的一套模板应该是不错的选择吧~~]

jojogaotianUID: 2189450

The author of this letter claims that the town council should sign the contract with EZ Disposal, because it collects the trash more frequently, possesses more trucks and provides good service based on a last year’s survey, despite that the monthly fee of EZ is much higher than that of ABC. In my opinion, this argument is logically unconvincing due to in three critical respects as follows.（第一段写的超级赞！）First of all, the author makes a hasty conclusion that the council switches to ABC Waste because of the lower monthly fee. Without a thorough investigation, it is not safe to conclude that the expense is the key to this decision. It is quite possible that the reason of the switching is due to the disposal methods of these two companies. The ABC Waste might has just shift to a novel disposal method that will not cause environmental pollution, while EZ Disposal still simply treat the trash by burying into the underground or burning in the open air, like they did ten years ago.  Therefore, it is much better to adopt ABC Waste's disposal method, regardless of the monthly fee.（不知道这个攻击点是否有力？我倒是没注意这个点，把攻击力度集中在为灭要继续用EZ了。。）Secondly, the author claims that EZ is superior to ABC because they collect trash twice a week and they will possess more trucks than ABC Waste. The higher frequency does not necessarily lead to better service, for it might be possible that once a week is sufficient to collect the trash in time for ABC, because it can provide their customers better dustbins that can protect the trash from decomposing in one week, while EZ can not stick to conventional trash bags and hence has to collect the trash twice a week. As a result, EZ Disposal needs more trucks than ABC Waste to fulfill this frequency and hence has to raise its monthly fee, while ABC can remain at a lower cost thanks to its advanced disposal method.Thirdly, the authors judges that EZ provides exceptional service based on a last year's survey, which is not convincing because that survey can not prove whether the respondents are still satisfied with EZ's performance. It is quite possible that the people in the town become unsatisfied with EZ due to its disposal method after they realized the importance of environmental pollution this year, and hence suggest the council to switch to a new company. Furthermore, there is no solid evidence showing that ABC can not provide good performance. It is quite possible that the advocating rate for ABC is much higher than that of EZ because it adopts high-tech disposal method which is not only friendly to the environment but also good to cut their costs, which in turn lower the monthly fee.（可能性都举的很赞啊~另外对survey的攻击最好加上base amount不够多，不够representative）To sum up, the author draws a hasty conclusion before he thoroughly compares the two disposal companies. In order to support his idea, he should not only cover the expense, collection frequency, or the truck number of the companies, but pay more attention to the effectiveness and the consequence of choosing the disposal company.写的真的很赞哦~句子用的很标准，给人感觉很清楚，而且攻击的例子都很好！


[ 本帖最后由 jojogaotian 于 2007-7-25 08:52 编辑 ]

jojogaotianUID: 2189450

编辑了半天还没没法变色了 不知道怎么回事
抱歉。。。。。