GRE作文入门和进阶二十五

“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.”

（范文）

The argument is not well reasoned at all， and it might be wise for Walnut Grove's town council to turn to ABC Disposal.

To begin with， despite EZ's weekly working frequency is as twice as ABC's， yet no sign has been displayed to prove that the “advantage” is necessary and fictional. For instance， if the town's garbage amount is under a particularly lower scale， which merely reaches the quantity of once disposal from ABC and hence the relatively once more from EZ is just a futile plethora. Also， even if twice disposal is applicable， it still deserves to doubt whether most citizens would like usual to choose EZ when taking into account the price of its service has been increased by $500 a month. Most citizens is highly possible to pick up a company that can offer best services while calling for relatively little money， for saving the extra $500， which to some extent is dispensable， I think， most citizens can cope with some easily handled trash with their own methods instead of singly relying on the disposal company.

And another crucial point I cast great discretion on is whether the survey made last year is the persuasive reflection of the whole citizen's actual attitudes. The major deniable spot is the survey's sampling size and accordingly the ultimate respondents echoing the questions. Visualize the citizens of Walnut town are no less than 500 thousands， but ironically only the 5 hundred ones have the fortune to be asked the question and in the end the real available records making some senses are less than the 10% of the interviewers， namely the upper limit is only 50 people. Let alone whether these answers have the widely applicable representative， just judging about the number of respondents we can have justifiable rights to disregard the validity of this survey.

Almost to forget to point out， that the freshly ordered 20 trucks of EZ cannot add another ponderous stake onto the balance， on the contrary， it might exacerbate the impressions of EZ in people's mind. Buying new trucks would ineluctably consume the company's property， and to take this disburse back the company must put some additional measures for compensation， thereby increasing the fees can lead the citizens to obtain the most strong conviction of loading the economic debt onto their shoulders， which finally ruins the tiny fantasy prone to the EZ.

So the arguer's recommendation is just nothing but a cheap propaganda to throw to the vast residents a deceptive illusion. I believe， in general， any one having look through these vulgar tricks full of vague information and implicit causal claims like me would be likely to accept the town council's decision， after all it is more sensible than the arguer suggests. （458 words）

点评：这篇文章彻底纠正了上述病历文的缺点，开头简短有力，准确回应，中间正文论述过度自然，值得借鉴，另外结尾也摆脱了原先的“改错建议”，用“讽刺”的口吻深化了主题。大家一定要重视这个问题，因为这实在是个“吃力不讨好”的事，而且这样的人还真不少，下面再看一例来自满分网的习作，将这种“毛病”升华到了极至。