argument17 GREAW 第四次作业

schweikUID: 2374674

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: 417          TIME: 00:30:00          DATE: 2007-8-9 10:58:35

The arguer recommends the residents in Walnut Grove (WG) to continue using EZ as their trash collection service provider. The reasons he/she gives includes comparison of the trash collecting frequency of the EZ and its possible alternative ABC Waste, the potential size of fleet of the two companies and the satisfaction rate of the EZ disposal. Although the argument seems well supported by the first glance, after closer scrutiny, there are several major flaws in it.

To begin with, more frequent trash collection does not necessarily mean better service. Without any evidence that justify a more frequent trash collection, we can safely assume that the collection rate at once a week may be enough for WG. We should also notice that more frequent trash collection usually related to higher cost and resulted in higher charge of the service. Unless we justify the raise of cost by the benefits brought by more frequent collection, the simple fact that EZ Disposal collects trash twice a week instead of ABC Waste’s once a week can not become an advantage of EZ Disposal.

Another flaw existing in the arguer's deduction is that it unfairly equates the larger fleet with better service.  Since no evidence that the capacities of the two companies' trucks are more or less the same, the arguer's assumption that due to more trucks EZ Disposal will possess in near future that it will be more capable to deal with large amount of trashes is unsubstantiated. Other related concerns such as whether more trucks are needed, whether the new trucks will be used in WG and when the new trucks EZ ordered will be ready are also neglected.

Finally, the 80 percent of respondents' satisfaction rate towards EZ should play little or no role in deciding which company to hire for reasons stated below. First, there is no assurance that the sample of the survey will represent EZ's customers fairly.  It is highly possible satisfied customers tends to answer surveys. Secondly, since no data about ABC's satisfaction rate is presented, we can not rule out the possibility that ABC's customers' satisfaction rate actually is higher than EZ's, thus weakens the arguer's position that EZ's the better choice.  

In sum, the arguer suggests that WG's inhabitant hire EZ Disposal instead of ABC Waste based on a series of unproven assumptions and reasoning. A better evaluation of the two alternative companies will contains more information about their service quality, history records and WG's financial status instead of a few superficial statistics.     

yuejiUID: 2367839

写得真好啊

anchorite2006UID: 2304956

我觉得这样子就可以当范文了

zhangxhgreUID: 2320425

zhongyu zhao dao yi pian ke yi bei de

schweikUID: 2374674

......
critical thingking is needed...