argument17 2006.2.24--mars-交作业

iven19821005UID: 2160156

17.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 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."

1.  车队的大小和有没有能力做好收集垃圾工作有联系，但并补是一定的因果关系。况且，ABC的卡车比EZ的大已倍呢。文中也没说道，ABB就补买车了。
2.        对于WG有必要一周收集两次垃圾吧，多做了可能说明EZ比ABC的车小呢。空且，收集两次垃圾，垃圾车在城市里老开来开去，对市容也补好。
3.        Survey 的可信度只得怀疑。
字数：497

In the analysis, the arguer claims that Walnut Grove’s town council should sign with EZ not ABC for waste collection in the future. To justify this claim, the arguer provide the evidences that EZ collects thrash two times per week while ABC collect once a week and the developing plan of ABC by purchasing more trucks. In addition, the arguer also cites the result of recent survey that most interviewees are satisfied with EZ’s work. A careful examination of this argument would reveal how groundless the conclusion is.

The major problem of this argument is that the arguer makes a fallacy of confusing causal relation with correlation. In order to verify the fact that EZ is better than ABC, the arguer demonstrate that EZ will order additional trucks, however one does not have to go very far to find that there is just a little relation between purchasing trucks and the assumption that EZ will exceed ABC. For instance, may be ABC’s trucks are twice as big as EZ’s and EZ’s trucks are much older than ABC’s, then EZ has to improve his team of trucks. Further more, there are no sentences showing the evidence which can ensure us that ABC will not buy trucks in the future. So taking new equipments may imply the sign that EZ is developing, it is probably not strong enough to conclude that it will cause EZ’s ability to exceed ABC’s.

In the second place, before we accept the conclusion the arguer must present more facts to demonstrate that the quantity is so large that the frequency of collection the garbage once a week may not be enough. Since, no evidence can prove the phenomena, the method used by EZ’s is doubtful. In addition that traveling garbage trucks damage the beauty of Walnut Grove, then, hardly can we believe that EZ’s behavior is proper.

Last but not least, whether the survey is correct or not has not been verified. The arguer tells us eighty percent respondents are satisfied with EZ’s service, but is the quantity of sample big and appropriate enough to indicate the very truth of the whole town? If the sample is just one hundred residents living in two communities, the credibility is far less what we have demanded. As to the arguer does not prove this important point in the content, the survey can not be accepted, then the argument will lost an inevitable support. In addition, the agreement from the interviewees does not indicate that they are not satisfied with ABC’s service, so the strength of this survey is weaken again.

In summary, the arguer fails to convince us EZ’s is more suitable than ABC in collecting the garbage of Walnut Grove, without taking into account of another five hundred dollars charged by EZ. For a stronger argument, the writer would need directly forth evidence associating EZ’s advantage with not only in EZ’s super abilities but also in better service.

[ 本帖最后由 iven19821005 于 2006-2-25 17:47 编辑 ]