Hi..新人一枚。
这周才开始准备作文。然后看了很多这版的帖子学到了很多。
但由于人在Waterloo, Canada，而且4B了课业紧张的要死（一学期，三个月，五门大四的精算，统计课真心累啊。）所以就没报名组队。。因为实在是GRE学两天就被迫叫停，得去看功课了。这过几天又要midterm了。。。。
Anyways，很希望各位大大能帮我看看这篇。。因为学的数学，所以大学五年间都没写太写过作文 （考试时候超过100字解释老师就嫌烦要扣分了）
这是第一次写Argument, 是Argument 43 (Evidence)类型
West Egg VS. Garbage Landfill
The following appeared in a memorandum written by the chairperson of the West Egg Town Council.
"Two years ago, 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, the town's residents have been recycling twice as much material as they did in previous years. Next month the amount of recycled material—which includes paper, plastic, and metal—should further increase, since charges for pickup of other household garbage will double. Furthermore, over 90 percent of the respondents to a recent survey said that they would do more recycling in the future. Because of our town's strong commitment to recycling, the available space in our landfill should last for considerably longer than predicted."
Write a response in which you discuss what specific evidence is needed to evaluate the argument and explain how the evidence would weaken or strengthen the argument.
以下为我写的练习，求狂拍！！先谢谢了！
Atfirst glance, it may seem plausible to accept the author’s claim, which is the landfill in West Egg Town will last longer than predicted.The author further develops three important lines of reasoning toindicate the impacts of the encouraging progress of town’srecycling activities, doubled garbage pickup service fee, and thestrong participation of local residents to the recycling activitiesshown by a recent survey. However, more concrete evidence will helpus better evaluate the rationality of the author’s reasoning andconclusion.
Firstly,we would need the evidence of whether or not the amount ofnon-recycling materials (those filling the landfill) decreases as therecycling amount increases in last two years. Without any informationabout the amount of total garbage produced (recycling andnon-recycling materials) over last two years, it is insufficient toevaluate this line of reasoning. For example, the total garbageproduced in town, over last two years, is over ten times than that inprevious years. It is very likely that non-recycling material hasincreased over 200%. In this case, the author’s reasoning issignificantly undermined as the landfill endured higher filling overlast two years than predicted. In contrast, an information, whichindicates that the amount of total garbage is nearly constant overthe last 20 years in West Egg Town, will considerably strengthen thispoint of reasoning in the argument.
Secondly,further evidences is desirable to evaluate the causal association ofthe increase in amount of recycling in next month with the doubled garbage service fee. This point of reasoning will be weakenedif the current pickup fee is extremely low, namely 1 cent. In thiscase, most households in West Egg will very likely neglect thischange of service fees. Granted that the households are indeedwilling to collect more recycling material due to the increase inpickup service fee, more evidence is still desirable to specify thepredicted percentage of recycling material of total garbage producednext month. For instance, that almost all households will consumevery few paper, plastic, and metal in West Egg next month and garbageis consisting of food remnants and other non-recycling materials. Thealleged relationship between amount of recycling and garbage pickupfee, mentioned above, will be untenable.
Moreover,the author utilizes the recent survey results, which indicates that90% of the respondents would support the recycling activities in thefuture, to demonstrate West Egg town’s strong commitment torecycling. However, the authenticity and entirety of such surveyresults are dubious because an individual may intentionally providefalse information to show his/her strong environmental awareness.Therefore, a better assessment of the town’s commitment torecycling should be based on more concrete evidence. For example, aregional study, which is conducted by an authorized statisticalinstitution, surveying the entire area will offer more cogentevidence because the rationality and veracity of the explanatoryfactors such as sample size, age ratio and sex ratio are guaranteed.If the results of this study are agreed upon that over 90% of theresidents are dedicated to recycling activities, it will beappropriate to follow this justifiable line of reasoning. On theother hand, in the presence of significant discrepancies, theauthor’s analysis for the commitment of local residents will berendered unsubstantial.
Insum, in order to more comprehensively and substantially assess theauthor’s proposition about the remaining usage length of thelandfill in West Egg Town, we would need more convincingevidence. By doing so, it will help us better evaluate therationality of the reasoning and conclusion in this argument.
|
京公网安备11010202008513号 京ICP证101109号 京ICP备12012021号
发表于 2013-5-24 07:17:47
收藏
收藏
楼主
