[a习作temp] argument017 【0906G Fight 3月中~4月初队】第二周第一次作业 by shenia [复制链接]

shenia
UID：2201960

寄托新兵

Rank: 2

声望: 1
寄托币: 111
注册时间: 2006-3-31
精华: 0
帖子: 0

电梯直达

楼主

发表于 2009-2-17 12:59:44 |只看该作者 |倒序浏览

"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."
60分钟
411字
   This letter’s author recommends that Walnut Grove should continue to contract with EZ Disposal for trash collection services. To justify his recommends, he notes that though $500 a month be extra money will be paid, but EZ collects trash twice a week while ABC collects only once. The author also point out that although the two companies have the same trucks, but EZ has ordered additional trucks. Finally, he also provide a survey that 80 percent of respondents to last year’s town survey agreed that they were ‘satisfied’ with EZ’s performance. Scrutinize these facts provided, I find that this recommendation specious on several grounds.
First of all, the fact that EZ collects trash twice as often as ABC is significant only if Walnut Grove can benefit from the additional collection. But no further evidence is provided to explain it’s that case. For all we know, collecting trash once a week is suitable for all people. If so, then on the basis of frequency of collection, it would make no sense to favor EZ’s costlier service over ABC’s expensive one.
Secondly, the fact that EZ ordered additional trucks would not favor the author’s recommends without detail information. At first, the order can also be canceled, if it’s that case, this fact is meaningless. Even if EZ have additional trucks, no evidences are provided that these trucks will be used for trash collection. It’s possible that EZ use these trucks to do other business such as furniture transportation. Even more these trucks will be used to collect trash, EZ may also use them in Walnut Grove. So, this fact doesn’t prove that it’s a better choice to use EZ’s service but not ABC’s.
   Thirdly, the mere fact that 80 percent of respondents to last year’s town survey agree that they were ‘satisfied’ with EZ’s performance provide little to the author’s recommendation. This survey failed to assure that these respondents are representative of the overall population of people in EZ. More over, even people are mostly satisfied with EZ’s service, but they will be more satisfied with ABC’s service.
   In sum, this recommendation is not well supported. To bolster it, more specific evidences that Walnut Grove will benefit from the additional collection each week and what’s the usage of EZ’S additional trucks should be provided. And to better assure this recommendation, some detail of this survey is needed and at least another survey that whether people are satisfied with ABC’s services should be implemented.