[a习作temp] Argument17 求拍 [复制链接]

sailwind87
UID：2380701

新手上路

Rank: 1

声望: 0
寄托币: 50
注册时间: 2007-8-12
精华: 0
帖子: 0

电梯直达

楼主

发表于 2007-8-12 16:23:07 |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: 436 TIME: 0:40:00 DATE: 2007-8-11

In this letter, the arguer proposes that Walnut Grove's town council should continue using EZ Disposal rather than transferring to ABC Waste. To justify the recommendation, the arguer cites the fact that EZ collects trash more frequently and has more trucks than ABC does. In addition, the arguer cites a survey to support the conclusion that residents are satisfied with EZ. However, a series of logical problems render the recommendation unpersuasive.

First of all, the author mistakes the frequency of trash collection for the quality and the efficiency of trash collection. Perhaps EZ collects trash more frequently just because it can not collect all trash at one time, and if the assumption is real, it indicates the EZ's efficiency is lower than the ABC's. Even if the EZ has the ability to collect all trash at one time, it is also possible that the quality of EZ's work is worse than ABC. Without pointing out the quality of the two company's work and whether twice collection a week is indispensable, the arguer can not convince us that the EZ is better than ABC.

Secondly, the author only pays attention to the number of the trucks of the EZ and the ABC and overlooks the volume and the capability of the trucks. It is obviously that the collection ability is not only affected by the number of the trucks but also decided by the volume of the trucks. Besides, without the total number of the trucks, other vehicle is also concerned.

Thirdly, the survey mentioned failed to convince us that EZ provides a high quality service. If the survey is conducted by EZ, the result would be doubtful. Even if the survey is conducted by a organization which hold a neutral standpoint, we should know the questions the survey asks, for example, if there are "outstanding" or "excellent" as a option in the survey to evaluate the EZ's work, and most people only agree that they are "satisfied", then the result will provide little credibility for the conclusion. And even suppose the respondents are really satisfied with EZ's work, there is also possibility that ABC's work is more excellent but is not known by the respondents.

In sum, the arguer fails to justify his or her recommendation on the basis of the scant fact mentioned. To strengthen the recommendation, the author need to provide clear evidence that EZ is more effective than ABC and it gains more satisfaction among the residents who have the knowledge of the both's work. To better assess the argument ,I need to know all kinds of the vehicle the two company using to collect trash and more information about the organization and the respondents of survey as well as the content.

第一篇A习作,请多指教