[a习作temp] 第四次作业Argument 17 [复制链接]

Lisa-yuan
UID：2748489

寄托新兵

Rank: 2

声望: 5
寄托币: 189
注册时间: 2010-1-12
精华: 0
帖子: 2

电梯直达

楼主

发表于 2010-1-24 23:21:37 |只看该作者 |倒序浏览

第四次作业Argument 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.

正文：（正文字数：430）
The arguer try to convince us that choosing EZ is better than ABC, based on which he assumes that EZ’s performance is better than ABC. Another piece of evidence presented to support the arguments is that EZ collect trash more one time than ABC. Moreover, the arguer takes it for granted that EZ adds trucks will provide better service. Hence the arguer draws the conclusion that resident in Walnut Grove should continue using EZ, though EZ’s fee is higher than ABC’s. This argument is ignored several aspects.

To begin with, the arguer fails to provide enough evidence about the residents care more about the frequency of the collection service than about the amount of money they are charged. Seeking good service seems the personal good will of arguer not all the residents. Suppose that there are 100 residents in Walnut Grove. If the fee of trash collection rises from $2000.00 to $2500.00, it means that every member in Walnut Grove has to pay more than $5.00 each month. Maybe some of the residents do not agree to continue using EZ Disposal.

Furthermore, the arguer regards that after EZ add the fleet of 20 trucks-has ordered additional trucks, EZ will bring better services to residents in Walnut Grove for sure. And ABC does not add trucks will provide worse service than EZ. The arguer fails to tell us that the EZ’s tracks will be all used in Walnut Grove. If EZ’s additional trucks were used in other towns, we can not get the conclusion that EZ’s performance will be better than ever before. There are also has not enough evidence to prove adding tracks will bring better service. Moreover, the arguer also ignores the performance of ABC. Maybe ABC can do as well as EZ.

In addition, the arguer fails to tell us how many percentages of people in Walnut Grove have been surveyed. It means the arguer does not give us a clear answer whether the conclusion from 80 percent of respondents is objective and typical or not. If most of the surveyed people always are on a trip outside, they might know little about the difference of service between the EZ and ABC. Without an objective and typical finding, how can arguer draw a precise conclusion?

In sum, if the residents in Walnut Grove want to decide whether EZ Disposal is suitable or not, they should investigate the difference between EZ and ABC. And the Walnut Grove's town council also makes an objective survey from its members. In that way, they can find a good solution to this problem.