Argument17 四月''无名''小组第二次作业-兔兔

acmwyyUID: 2189302

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: 371          TIME: 00:30:00          DATE: 2006-3-16

In this argument the author concludes that we should continue using EZ. To substantiate his conclusion, the arguer cites that EZ collects trash twice a week which is more that ABC. By the mean time he points out that EZ has ordered additional trucks though it has equal trucks number currently like ABC. In order to support the recommendation, the author points out that exceptional service shows that 80 percent of respondents were satisfied with EZ's performance. A careful examination of this argument would reveal that this argument is fraught with vague, oversimplified and unwarranted assumptions.

First of all, the author fails to establish a causal relationship between collects trash twice a week and better service of EZ. May be it is not necessary to collects the trash twice every week, or customers prefer collects only once each week for a quieter living environment due to the trucks used to collect trashes. Or EZ may collect it twice only because they can not do it at one time as ABC does.

Furthermore the author ignores the possibility that the new trucks ordered by EZ my just because they current ones are old and need to be changed. The author provides no information about how much is the 20 trucks compare to the current trucks each company has. If there are only 40 trucks in each company, 20 new-ordered trucks might be persuasive, but we got no information from the article. We also find no information about ABC's additional trucks. Maybe they ordered 40 trucks, or they have brought 20 trucks already, or they have just added a good many of new trucks. Without further information about the EZ's new ordered trucks or ABC's current situation, we can not draw a hasty generalization on which one is better.

Finally, the statistical evidence upon which the argument stands is too vague to be informative. We got no information about how many people respond compare to who do not. Maybe little comparatively better satisfied residents respond to the survey. What's more important, we do not know the feedbacks from ABC Waste. They might be of even higher evaluation.

In conclusion, the argument is not persuasive as it stands. Before we accept the conclusion, the author must present more accurate facts to demonstrate that the residents are more satisfied by EZ Disposal than ABC Trash. We need a precise preference on how many times picking up trash. We also need evidence to show 20 ordered trucks present a better development of EZ than ABC. Also, we need more representative survey to show that it is true customers are satisfied by the EZ company, and, more satisfied that ABC. We also need to aware that in order to evaluate a disposal company's performance, there's still a lot to be concern.

suyueUID: 2181126

l和上篇一样 你不看开头结尾，只看中间论述。没多少内容
比如攻击这个EZ provides exceptional service: 80 percent of respondents to last year's town survey agreed that they were 'satisfied' with EZ's performance."
说完了调查不科学，用个EVEN IF ，调查是有意义的，去年的情况也不能说明今年的问题。加个可能性猜测。论证不就有层次，丰满了？
一些小问题，和大错误有关系。我们就可以用剥皮的方法去攻击。先说大问题。在来个让步，说小问题。这样比较好（个人感觉）

词语，句子都很好