后使用快捷导航没有帐号？
查看: 885|回复: 5
最后登录在线时间596 小时寄托币22407 声望423 注册时间阅读权限175帖子精华55积分23914UID2257608
声望423 寄托币22407 注册时间精华55帖子
这次刚刚出去回来手还有点生,不过这篇文章也是第二次写所以还算顺利
1, 作者认为是因为价格问题而变了垃圾商, 但这点没被证明
2, 让步假设, 即使是因为价格问题, 作者也没有证明EZ多出来的那500美圆是值得的
A, 频率不能说明结果
B, ABC的卡车情况不知道
C, 调查不可靠
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 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: 621& && && & TIME: 0:28:42& && && & DATE:
&&In this argument, the author first asserts Walnut Grove's town council switches from EZ Disposal to ABC Waste after receiving the former one's services for 10 years, since EZ raised its monthly fee for $500 recently. In this sense, he claims that the council's choice is wrong and suggests they remain the deal with EZ Disposal. To prove EZ's advantages, the author states three facts, including EZ collects trash twice a week while ABC EZ has ordered additionally trucks to their fleet, which now is as large as ABC's; EZ is supposed to provide exceptional service according to a recent survey. However, all these facts are insufficient to prove that EZ is a better choice, so well as the precise of this argument is not well testified. A careful check will show us these critical flaws.
&&Fundamentally, the author makes his suggestion on a statement that the council changed its waste diposer just for its raised fee, and then makes his efforts to prove this fee is worthy. But as we know, the charge is not the only reason for a council to chose its waste disposer, since many other reasons, such as methods of disposing, social effects, company's reputation and so forth. Without excluding these elements which can be considered, we can properly suspect that ABC waste is taking a more developed way for trashing, causing less air pollution and noises, or it may have a better history in some other cities where the situation is similar to Walnut Grove's. Further investigation about the reasons of the council's decision should be made or it will be useless even the charge of EZ is proved to be worthy.
&&Assuming the raised fee is the only reason, and then it comes to the EZ's advantage as the only question: whether its $500 raise is worthy? The author claims it is and states three facts. However, none of they is not detailed in a effective way to make them sound.
&&Firstly, it is said that EZ collects trash twice a week but ABC just collects once. Although the frequency can tell some of a company's effectiveness, it cannot stand for all. Will the EZ collect more carefully and totally than ABC? Maybe they collect twice just because they cannot collect all the trash once and these twice are closed in time to each other. Such possibilities can cause the frequency useless to assess EZ's service.
&&Secondly, EZ has ordered additional trucks as stated, but ABC's situation is not detailed. The author tries to mislead us to an illusion that EZ will have more trucks than ABC since they originally have the same but EZ ordered more. Has ABC also ordered new trucks? We don't know. Even EZ will have more trucks than ABC, how large are these trucks? Can they devote more than ABC's fleet? Are they necessary? All of these questions are left to be answered.
&&Thirdly, a survey is cited to prove that EZ provides exceptional service, stating 80 percent of respondents to last year's town survey chose 'satisfied' as their answer. But this evidence is insufficient. Also, ABC's service is not surveyed and we cannot make comparison. What sense can 80 percent make? Is this really a high rate? Maybe ABC can have even more satisfied respondents or these citizens did not care much about their waste disposer. Such considerations make the survey insufficient to testify EZ's &exceptional service&.
&&To sum up, this argument is based on a hasty assertion as precise, and proves no significant evidence. To make his suggestion sounder, the author need to make sure that the financial issue is the only consideration for the council's decision, as well as to provide more evidence to convince us that pay $500 a month is worthy.
最后登录在线时间596 小时寄托币22407 声望423 注册时间阅读权限175帖子精华55积分23914UID2257608
声望423 寄托币22407 注册时间精华55帖子
这个是第一次写的
提纲上多了最后一条, ABC可能有其它好处, 因为我觉得最后一条其实在第一条就就已经提到了, 而且很多优点都能归结为是否合算
另外感觉新写的语言上有了些进步
也请各位帮忙定夺下
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 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: 536& && && & TIME: 0:36:45& && && & DATE:
&&According to the letter, the author states that Walnut Grove's town council advocated switching from EZ Disposal to ABC Waste because of EZ Disposal's increased charge, therefore-claiming that such switch is wrong. To support his assertion, the author mentions that EZ Disposal has better and worthy service. However, the statement suffers from an unwarranted estimation and an unfair comparison.
&&Fundamentally, the author provides no evidence to prove that Walnut Grove's town council has deserted EZ Disposal and chose ABC Waste only because of their fees. The council may take other reasons under consideration, such as pollution, effect and so forth. It is entirely possible that ABC Waste has a more developed method to dispose waste, consuming less energy and causing less pollution. Without excluding such possibilities, the author can not asserts that the council's decision is wrong, only based on the discussion of whether two companies' charges are worthy.
&&Even if the council made the decision just for the payment, the author's assertion is still not convincing, as it unfairly compares two companies' services and conditions.
&&Firstly, whether EZ's two times of collection a week is worth $2,500 is not illustrated. Although ABC Waste only collects trash once a week, its collection may be more careful and exhaustive, while EZ just uses few trucks to collect a part of trash. The comparison of collecting times is unconvincing.
&&Secondly, the details of two companies' truck fleets are not stated, before concluding that EZ's trucks are more. Whether ABC has ordered additional trucks is not known, so well as the sizes of these trucks. Perhaps the trucks of ABC are much larger than EZ's, or perhaps ABC has also ordered additional trucks.
&&Thirdly, the survey of EZ's service can not prove EZ's service is better than ABC's. 80 percent of respondents may not be a large number, and not stand for exceptional service, since there are still 20 percent who are not satisfied with EZ's service.& &Maybe many people do not care about the service of waste disposal company, so they just agreed that they were 'satisfied'. Even if EZ admittedly provides exceptional service, there is no evidence to say ABC will provide a worse one.
&&Moreover, even EZ has showed its advantages in such comparisons, it still can not be considered as better than ABC Waste, since ABC may have advantages in other aspects to make them worth the fee, including that it has a more organized schedule to dispose waste, as well as it can dispose different kinds of waste in different methods, while EZ can not. To prove that it's a better choice to hire EZ for $2,500 per month than to hire ABC for $ 2,000 a month, the author needs a more general view.
&&To sum, the author take a hasty conclusion that Walnut Grove's town council switched its waste disposal company only due to the payment. Moreover, he fails to convince us the fee of EZ is worthy enough to not switching to ABC Waste. More survey and illustration are needed to make the reason of council's switch and prove EZ's service is worth $500 more than the fee of ABC if the author wants to make his statement convincing and rational.
最后登录在线时间9 小时寄托币7511 声望9 注册时间阅读权限40帖子精华1积分11677UID2247022
超级会员, 积分 11677, 距离下一级还需 -5677 积分
声望9 寄托币7511 注册时间精华1帖子
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 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: 536& && && & TIME: 0:36:45& && && & DATE:
&&According to (..In 不好么,不然怎么翻译 依照or根据都不顺)the letter, the author states that Walnut Grove's town council advocated switching from EZ Disposal to ABC Waste because of EZ Disposal's increased charge, therefore-claiming that such switch is wrong. (the author states that the decision of WG town council that+........was unadvisable好一点吧)To support his assertion, the author mentions that EZ Disposal has better and worthy service. However, the statement suffers from an unwarranted estimation and an unfair comparison.
&&Fundamentally, the author provides no evidence to prove that Walnut Grove's town council has deserted EZ Disposal and chose ABC Waste only because of their fees. The council may take other reasons under consideration, such as pollution, effect and (+efficiency)so forth. It is entirely possible that ABC Waste has a more developed method to dispose waste, consuming less energy and causing less pollution. Without excluding such possibilities(你就列出来一个可能性), the author can not asserts that the council's decision is wrong, only based on the discussion of whether two companies' charges are worthy.(这里可以说作者不合理或不符合逻辑,或者我们不相信.但说author不能做什么 什么不知道合理不合理)
&&Even if the council made the decision just for the payment, the author's assertion is still not convincing, as it unfairly compares two companies' services and conditions.
&&Firstly, whether EZ's two times of collection a week is worth $2,500 is not illustrated. Although ABC Waste only collects trash once a week, its collection may be more careful and exhaustive, while EZ just uses few trucks to collect a part of trash. The comparison of collecting times is unconvincing.
&&Secondly, the details of two companies' truck fleets are not stated, before concluding that EZ's trucks are more. Whether ABC has ordered additional trucks is not known, so well as the sizes of these trucks. Perhaps the trucks of ABC are much larger than EZ's, or perhaps ABC has also ordered additional trucks.
&&Thirdly, the survey of EZ's service can not prove EZ's service is better than ABC's. 80 percent of respondents may not be a large number, and not stand for exceptional service, since there are still 20 percent who are not satisfied with EZ's service.& &Maybe many people do not care about the service of waste disposal company, so they just agreed that they were 'satisfied'. Even if EZ admittedly provides exceptional service, there is no evidence to say ABC will provide a worse one.
&&Moreover, even EZ has showed its advantages in such comparisons, it still can not be considered as better than ABC Waste, since ABC may have advantages in other aspects to make them worth the fee, including that it has a more organized schedule to dispose waste, as well as it can dispose different kinds of waste in different methods, while EZ can not. To prove that it's a better choice to hire EZ for $2,500 per month than to hire ABC for $ 2,000 a month, the author needs a more general view.
&&To sum, the author take a hasty conclusion that Walnut Grove's town council switched its waste disposal company only due to the payment. Moreover, he fails to convince us the fee of EZ is worthy enough to not switching to ABC Waste. More survey and illustration are needed to make the reason of council's switch and prove EZ's service is worth $500 more than the fee of ABC if the author wants to make his statement convincing and rational.
还真是每句都攻击了，逻辑错误都很到位，主要要细化和具体攻击．
我觉的　主要矛盾a前提　b对比　c调查类
所以可以分三个攻击段可以了
& && &我不放弃
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
真正的光明决不是永没有黑暗的时间，只是永不被黑暗所掩蔽罢了。真正的英雄决不是永没有卑下的情操，只是永不被卑下的情操所屈服罢了。
最后登录在线时间596 小时寄托币22407 声望423 注册时间阅读权限175帖子精华55积分23914UID2257608
声望423 寄托币22407 注册时间精华55帖子
谢谢小马指正~(下次给我留个地址回拍吧
不过我觉得那个调查也是在论证EZ的优势啊, 跟两个对比是在同一逻辑层次上的
最后登录在线时间9 小时寄托币7511 声望9 注册时间阅读权限40帖子精华1积分11677UID2247022
超级会员, 积分 11677, 距离下一级还需 -5677 积分
声望9 寄托币7511 注册时间精华1帖子
原帖由 lastangel 于
17:03 发表
谢谢小马指正~(下次给我留个地址回拍吧
不过我觉得那个调查也是在论证EZ的优势啊, 跟两个对比是在同一逻辑层次上的
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
嘿嘿 一般调查类的比较容易攻击 我一般都要做主攻击
再者就是因果关系不成立 和错误类比都比较容易攻击
& && &我不放弃
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
真正的光明决不是永没有黑暗的时间，只是永不被黑暗所掩蔽罢了。真正的英雄决不是永没有卑下的情操，只是永不被卑下的情操所屈服罢了。
最后登录在线时间9 小时寄托币7511 声望9 注册时间阅读权限40帖子精华1积分11677UID2247022
超级会员, 积分 11677, 距离下一级还需 -5677 积分
声望9 寄托币7511 注册时间精华1帖子
原帖由 lastangel 于
17:03 发表
谢谢小马指正~(下次给我留个地址回拍吧
不过我觉得那个调查也是在论证EZ的优势啊, 跟两个对比是在同一逻辑层次上的
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
....调查类的错误很容易攻击 比如代表性 数据怎么处理的 调查者的年龄 性别 和职业 都影响调查结果的可信度和权威性
在此文中 调查对象有没有代表性:author没提 最主要的一点是 author只提到调查80 percent对象对ZE,但没有提到对ABC的态度, 很又可能他们 99percent的满意呢,所以没有更多信息,只依据这个调查是不合理的.
& && &我不放弃
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
真正的光明决不是永没有黑暗的时间，只是永不被黑暗所掩蔽罢了。真正的英雄决不是永没有卑下的情操，只是永不被卑下的情操所屈服罢了。
Cancer巨蟹座
Cancer巨蟹座
【版主】退休版主
QQ联合登录
【全站】QQ捆绑登录
建筑版勋章
【建筑】建筑版勋章
广州九微教育科技有限公司
Copyright &
GTER All Rights Reserved
Powered by假如我和周周“互换”（泡泡版）
[]　[原创写景]　发表时间：
哎呀！我真希望过周周的那种生活啊！我俩立刻互换了……
5点整。我正做好梦呢！天上掉下了金子，刚准备捡，“哎哟！”一看，一个中年妇女啊！想必她就是周夫人拉！我立刻礼貌的打招呼：“夫人，早上好~”，嘿嘿，谁叫我的长相又没变！还是周周的模样！谁知道我的“老婆”连踢带打的把我撵出卧室门外。周周真可怜啊！我躺在沙发上想。一分钟。两分钟。三分钟。四分钟……快过了半小时，我的早饭怎么还没送过来啊！我一问，什么？要我自己去做？？？早说呀！死老婆！我生气的走到商店里买了几个窝窝头，啃了起来。哎，这窝头不新鲜吧，发霉了……
吃完早饭我连忙赶往汽车站，唉，谁叫我这死老婆也不给我钱打的呢？可怜呀~~~谁知道公共汽车上挤的要死！把我挤扁了~~~~我赶紧催司机快点儿开。结果这么一折腾，我就迟到了~~~本来以为大家都知道编辑部呢，问来问去也问不出个所以然来……折腾几个小时终于到了编辑部，孔主编面带怒色，哎呀！惨拉呀！得挨批拉！在家里挨批，在编辑部也挨批……我挨完批赶紧打开电脑审核起作文来，哎呀！我不知道周周的密码和通行证！先上我的号吧~~~一看，喜了，嘿嘿，周周给我留了言！告诉我了通行证是XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX，密码是**************************************************（别留口水，我是不会泄露的）我赶紧关闭我的，上周周的。看到了好多高手给我留了言，比方是神气战士那些的。哈哈！他们在我“周周”面前也只是一个小辈！
好了，不说了，我要审核作文拉！看见了一个“审核作文栏”，呃~~~这篇文章不错，给个精华吧；这篇作文垃圾，普通！；这篇作文的作者跟我有仇，也是普通！；这篇作文的作者对我有恩情，帮助过我，顺便给个强力~~；这篇作文的作者在跟我PK，不能让他占上风，普通！；呃……忽然看到我发的作文了哎！时机不可错过呀！我连忙给了个精华，还有推荐和采用！我可真厉害呀！有一篇作文既是精华又是推荐还是采用，哈哈！对了！不如上我的号偷偷的发作文！篇篇给采用！那样我没多久就可以成为个性作家拉！哇哈哈哈哈哈！我立刻执行大脑下的“命令”，可是打字速度我嫌太慢了~~对了！不如每篇作文只发一个字！也给采用！好！我马上狂发，算来算去，我的天啊！破了记录！我已经有100篇采用拉！爽快！！！！
我突然想起了在一旁埋头工作的柠檬J，奶油老师，小K老师，好不容易看到一次，不如加他们仨QQ吧！立刻发条短信息过去给小K：你有QQ号吗？大概是小K工作也太“忘我”了吧，马上回了条：有。晕死！我问清白之后马上加了他们的QQ号！真爽快啊！这次互换呀，值得！我为此还专门创办了一个“创新作文群”呢！专门加入“创网”的用户。哎呀！我忘记最重要的事拉！快到商店买照相机去！干啥？拍照呗！“卡擦！”哈哈！以后放到网上不知道会羡慕死多少人！
中午了，肚子也唱起“空城计”来，嘿嘿，早就听说重庆市的火锅好，这回咱也来尝尝鲜！呃，不要太辣的吧~~~我虽然是长沙妹子，可是嘴巴刚好起了泡啊~~~我和孔孔（就是孔主编，K子他们都这么叫）等人一起来到了“辣不死你跟你姓！”餐厅，哦，味道好浓啊！仔细一品尝，果然像《爽！重庆火锅！》作文里面描写的一模一样！周周的生活好幸福啊！吃完饭后，我满意的一边打着饱嗝，一边挑牙齿，“呃！”我问柠檬姐姐：“谁出钱？”谁知道柠檬一脸坏笑的说：“你！”啊！晕死！原来编辑都是这么不讲道理的呀！……
下午，我继续呆在编辑部里工作，柠檬问我们出不出去玩，哈哈！正合我意呀！自从我成为“大人”后还没玩过呢！结果一问，去游泳！哈哈！游泳可是我的强项啊！我立刻双手赞成，哈哈哈哈哈哈哈哈哈哈！来到游泳池，我立刻换上了游泳装，啧啧啧~~穿着三点式游泳衣的柠檬和奶油就是光彩照人呀！哎！小K呢？一看，原来K子也是游泳高手，早就……不管这么多拉！我也跳进水里，呜呵呵，感觉真不错！咦？孔主编呢？哈哈！原来他不会游泳，怕呛水呀！我和柠檬在一旁死皮赖脸的笑孔主编，气的孔主编大喊：“谁笑谁扣光一个月的工资哦啊，谁笑！”啊！我赶紧游去了，跟柠檬奶油老师一起打水仗还是挺开心的嘛！不过我还有小孩子的天分哦！打水仗肯定是更胜一筹拉！哈哈哈！
晚上我又回到了自己的家，“老婆”端来了热气腾腾的晚餐，吃完饭后我只看了一会儿电视就睡觉了，“老婆！我要你陪我睡觉……”赞(0)
发表评论 发表评论 平均：3分
(3分)评论时间：（ 14:08:37）(3分)评论时间：（ 13:45:52）(3分)评论时间：（ 21:40:25）(3分)评论时间：（ 20:32:30）(3分)评论时间：（ 18:04:33）(3分)评论时间：（ 20:32:35）(3分)评论时间：（ 19:17:45）(3分)评论时间：（ 16:55:40）
很好 (5分)
发表评论并评分　
热门关键词：
o&&&o&&&o&&&o&&&o&&&6年级下册过关冲刺100分语文第八周周考卷作文是什么_百度知道
6年级下册过关冲刺100分语文第八周周考卷作文是什么
却又源源而来，我们便模仿着大人的样子玩了童年趣事　　岁月如流水！　　一说起童年，应有尽有，以铺平的地方为柜台…　　万事俱备、童趣，但劳动成果使我们一点也不觉得累。虽然我们准备时累的挥汗如雨。　　说做就做。于是。　　小时候，见大人们总喜欢拿着一张带有字和画的纸买别人的东西，我们以叶片为钱。特别适合当我们的“大卖场”。当然，我们的商品更是琳琅满目，便充满了好奇和想着模仿的心，趣事就像跟屁虫一样跟了过来，她们都拍手叫好，我们开始动身，已经累得懒得动了、童稚的时代，奶奶的家门口有片小树林。用一块砖围成我们想象的房子，便和伙伴们商量起来……最后。我们以花草为卖品，可真是有趣极了，还有我们家扒猪圈剩下的砖，但童年却一去不复返，不断逝去。翻开记忆的画册。　　那时，回想那个富有童真，真是回味无穷啊
来自团队：
其他类似问题
为您推荐：
冲刺100分的相关知识
等待您来回答
下载知道APP
随时随地咨询
出门在外也不愁