[a习作temp] argument17 [GREAW] 3号同学第4次作业 [复制链接]

clubranran
UID??2362938

寄托新兵

Rank: 2

声望: 0
寄托币: 140
注册时间: 2007-7-14
精华: 0
帖子: 0

电梯直达

楼主

发表于 2007-8-9 15:29:01 |只看该作者 |倒序浏览

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."
×ÖÊý£º474 ÓÃÊ±£º0:36:00 ÈÕÆÚ£º2007-8-9

In this argument, the arguer concludes that Walnut Groves's town council should not change the trash collection services from EZ to ABC. To support his conclusion, the arguer provides some reasons to show that the services made by EZ are much better. A careful examination of this argument would reveal how groundless it is.

The major problem of the argument is that it is too hasty for the arguer to prove that the quality of trash collection of EZ is better than ABC, only by the times of collection per week and the additional trucks. Common sense tells us the quality of a company's service is so complex that due to not only the hardware and some guide lines of the service, but also the mode of manage, the level and the attitude of the service, which are more likely to determine whether the company is good or bad. It is true that ABC collects the trash only once a week, which once less than EZ', however, the quality of ABC may obviously better than EZ's. Moreover, the additional trucks may not play such a vital role, if the manage of EZ is not excellent enough to arrange them to work compactly.

What's more weaken the argument is that the arguer fails to make a convinced evidence to prove that the performance of EZ is more satisfied, even if the result of the last year's survey showed that most of respondents were satisfied with EZ. We may cast doubt on the following problems happened in the survey: how many people responded the survey, whether the respondents had the representational function, what the areas and fields had taken the survey and so on. If the arguer can not provide more evidence to solve the doubt above, we may strongly believe that it is possible that the amount of the respondents was too small and the area was narrow, too, to make the result of survey convinced.

Last but least, the arguer ignores people’s attitude of ABC Waste. The arguer makes the conclusion basing on the advantages of EZ only. It is too unilateral for the arguer to judge without doing none research about ABC. Unless the arguer can provide a convictive survey to show whether the people are satisfied with ABC, I can not be convinced that people were unsatisfied with ABC Waste. It is possible that people are more satisfied with ABC rather than EZ. Obviously, since it is a argument that contains two competitive companies, the arguer should provide us both the disadvantages and advantages between the two by comparison.

To sum up, the conclusion lack credibility because the evidence cites in the analysis does not lend strong support to what the arguer maintains. The arguer must have to produce more evidence to rule out all the possibilities that might weaken the argument.