17. The following appeared in a letter to the editor of the Walnut Grove town newspaper.

　　Walnut Groves 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 ABCs 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， EZwhich， like ABC， currently has a fleet of 20 truckshas ordered additional trucks. Finally， EZ provides exceptional service： 80 percent of respondents to last years town survey agreed that they were satisfied with EZs performance.

　?。ǚ段模?/p>

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

　　To begin with， despite EZs weekly working frequency is as twice as ABCs， yet no sign has been displayed to prove that the advantage is necessary and fictional. For instance， if the towns 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 citizens actual attitudes. The major deniable spot is the surveys 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 peoples mind. Buying new trucks would ineluctably consume the companys 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 arguers 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 councils decision， after all it is more sensible than the arguer suggests. （458 words）

　　點評：這篇文章徹底糾正了上述病歷文的缺點，開頭簡短有力，準確回應，中間正文論述過度自然，值得借鑒，另外結尾也擺脫了原先的改錯建議，用諷刺的口吻深化了主題。大家一定要重視這個問題，因為這實在是個吃力不討好的事，而且這樣的人還真不少，下面再看一例來自滿分網的習作，將這種毛病升華到了極至。

　　17. The following appeared in a letter to the editor of the Walnut Grove town newspaper.

　　Walnut Groves 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 ABCs 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， EZwhich， like ABC， currently has a fleet of 20 truckshas ordered additional trucks. Finally， EZ provides exceptional service： 80 percent of respondents to last years town survey agreed that they were satisfied with EZs performance.

　　（范文）

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

　　To begin with， despite EZs weekly working frequency is as twice as ABCs， yet no sign has been displayed to prove that the advantage is necessary and fictional. For instance， if the towns 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 citizens actual attitudes. The major deniable spot is the surveys 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 peoples mind. Buying new trucks would ineluctably consume the companys 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 arguers 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 councils decision， after all it is more sensible than the arguer suggests. （458 words）

　　點評：這篇文章徹底糾正了上述病歷文的缺點，開頭簡短有力，準確回應，中間正文論述過度自然，值得借鑒，另外結尾也擺脫了原先的改錯建議，用諷刺的口吻深化了主題。大家一定要重視這個問題，因為這實在是個吃力不討好的事，而且這樣的人還真不少，下面再看一例來自滿分網的習作，將這種毛病升華到了極至。