Argument17 Myth小组第四次作业 airbots

airbotsUID: 2225434

"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."

提纲：
1，收垃圾的次数多不代表服务质量好
2，车多不知道效率与用途
3，统计不具有代表性

In this newspaper the editor recommends that the Grove twon should continue using EZ Disposal instead of hiring ABC Waste. To prop this recommendation the editor cites three evidences: (1)EZ collects trash twice a week, while ABC collects only once.(2) EZ and ABC has a fleet of 20 trunks, but the former has ordered additional trucks.(3) a survey about EZ's exceptional services that 80% respondents laste year were "satisfied" with EZ. However, this argument contains a series of logical flaws, and is therefore not forceful as it stands.

First of all, the difference about the times of the collecting trash a week does not indicate the qualities of services between EZ and ABC. Nevertheless, it is entirely possible that although the ABC collect the trash only one a week, they clear all the trash up and make the place where the trash dump tidy, and perhaps the EZ can not work better that  ABC even they collect the trash twice a week. Without ruling out these or other possible factors which influence the qualities of the service of the two providers, the writer can not conclude that the the times of collecting trash can stand for the quality of services.

In the second place, the number of the trucks does not indicate that EZ's service is superior that the ABC's. However, it is equally possible that those trucks that EZ will buy are not used to trash collecting, or perhaps all the EZ's trucks effective is interior than the ABC's. In the absence of the information that  the new buying car's usage and the effective of the two providers' trucks, it is unpersuasive to assert that EZ is superior than ABC.  

Last but not least, the editor does not supply the necessary information about
the survey, which make this survy's statistical reliability unpersuasive.  there is no evidence about the respondents are representative for all the residents in Grove town who the EZ give the trash collecting service to in general.  The editor overlook the possibility that these respondents who were "satisfied" with EZ's performance may get money from EZ. For lacking of the information about the randomness and size of the survey, and the representative of the respondents, the editor can not make a convictive conclusion based on that survey.  

All in all, this argument is not convincing. To buttress it the editor should supply the evidencd about the qualities about the trash collecting services, the effective and the usage of the trucks of the two companies. We also need the editor to substantiate the reliability of the survey cited in this argument.

[ 本帖最后由 airbots 于 2006-10-26 11:04 编辑 ]