[a习作temp] Argument17 Winner小组第七次作业 by maohaili [复制链接]

maohaili
UID??2321025

寄托新兵

Rank: 2

声望: 0
寄托币: 123
注册时间: 2007-3-29
精华: 0
帖子: 0

电梯直达

楼主

发表于 2007-8-11 10:25:47 |只看该作者 |倒序浏览

TOPIC: ARGUMENT17 - 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."
WORDS: 393 TIME: 01:00:00 DATE: 8/11/2007 9:19:37 AM

In this argument, the arguer recommends that Walnut Grove's town should still choose EZ Disposal for trash collection services. However his evidence is not concrete enough to convince me. After reading the argument carefully I found that there are several logical flaws in his argument which reflect its bias in nature followed by a false deduction. I will evaluate and point out the mistakes he has made in his claim in my essay.

To begin with, the arguer deems that although EZ Disposal has raised its monthly fee by 25%, while ABC's free is still $2,000, the town should still choose EZ for its better trash collection services. The arguer's argument relies on two unproven assumptions and is therefore unconvincing as it stands. One is the citizens may want to reduce the cost of trash collection services and choose ABC Disposal. The other is the extra charge does not necessarily mean better service.

Additionally, the arguer only gives us two factors to compare the services of two companies. The services are also depending on other factors such as the management of the company, the polite services from their workers, the working efficiency and etc. And the two factors are not convinced at all. One factor is EZ collects trash twice a week while ABC collects only once. Maybe the citizens doesn't produce two much trash and only need trash collection once a week. The other factor is EZ has ordered additional trucks. ABC may have better working efficiency and a fleet of 20 trucks is enough for them. On the contrary, EZ may lack of management and arrangement, it need more trucks to meet the same demand of trash collection. And we can doubt that EZ have some trucks in fix.

What's more, another crucial point I cast great discretion on is whether the survey reflects all the citizen's actual attitudes. We can still doubt the sampling size and the ultimate respondents of the questionnaire. Just judging the number of respondents we can justifiable rights to disregard the validity of this survey.

In sum, the argument relies on a suspectable survey and ridiculous assumption to deduce his conclusion. To strengthen the argument the arguer should provide sampling size, ultimate respondents of the questionnaire and detail steps of the survey. The arguer should also compare other factors of services provided by these two companies.