"为我所用"小组第二次作业argument17

rienziUID: 2402391

求求诸位牛人了，
还有五天了，
就给偶看一下吧，
稍微看一下大概能得多少分，
要怎么样改进，
跪谢了



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: 423          TIME: 00:30:00          DATE: 2008-4-11 21:56:36



    The arguer refutes the advocation of switching EZ Disposal, a trash collecting company, to ABC in Walnut Grove's town in his town. He presents several reasons to support his conclusion that EZ offers better service and are more effective to collect trash. And the result of a survey has also been quoted by him to convince readers. But through careful scrutiny, it is not difficult to pick up some fatal fallacies from his discussion.
    Firstly, the arguer tells us that EZ recently raised its monthly fee by 500 dollars and ABC's fee is still, but I think this reason can lead the conclusion that Walnut Grove's town should switch to ABC. A rise of monthly fee will not certainly be followed up by better service. And we do not know the purpose of the increasement of fee. And the arguer does not concern the finacial condition of citizens there. If the citizens in Walnut Grove's town can not afford the increasing money of 500 dollars and EZ does not provide better service relatively, the suggestion that switching from EZ Disposal to ABC Waste is definitely an reasonable one.
    Secondly, the once more time of trash collecting a week of EZ and the addtional ordered trucks can not convince us that EZ works more effectively than ABC. If in the two times in sum, EZ does not collect as the same amount of trash as ABC does, the once more time means nothing. And, the additional trucks will not lead to the result that EZ will collect trash more inefficiently either. More drivers should be employed and more salaries should be paid to make the efficiency higher.
    Thirdly, the result from a survey which has been quoted by the arguer can not convince us that EZ are more satisfying than ABC either. The survey was done in the last year and no one can predict what result can be got by a same survey this year. And the data which shows that 80 percent of individuals were satisfied with EZ's performance were from those people who had responded the survey. Then what about those who did not respond the survey? If the number of people who had responded the survey was very low, the result of the survey will mean nothing.
    Given the discussion above, the arguer's conclusion is unreasonable. And it is highly likely that switching to EZ is a good suggestion. More should be done and more should be concerned by the arguer to support his conclusion or make him discard it.


[ 本帖最后由 rienzi 于 2008-4-12 09:15 编辑 ]

rienziUID: 2402391

自己顶一下,
如能得到哪位大侠的指教将十分感激