=七月流火=小组第4次小组作业 argu17 by sasakikojiro 欢迎大家来拍 有拍必回！

SasakiKojiroUID: 2678315

I-17
"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."






Supposing trash collection frequency, quantity of trucks both EZ Disposal and ABC Waste services, then synthesizing the two hypothesizers and another factor that the survey took in town last year, the author accordingly suggests that we should continue using EZ in stead of ABC Waste which the town council advocated. However, it is drastically extreme for the author to assert this conclusion.



Firstly, the author are failing to consider those two services total quantity of trash collection in a week. It is possible that EZ's total quantity of trash collection is more than ABC. Therefore, for instance, the trash collection area of ABC is over the whole city contrast to EZ's which only collects trash around several main blocks; Besides, even if EZ Disposal and ABC Waste have a same collection area, it is possible that there is a inefficient collection by EZ Disposal than ABC Waste's drastically inefficient collection because EZ's workers' dereliction of work.



Secondly, the author are failing to consider both EZ and ABC's size of trucks. It is possible that the size of the truck in ABC Waste are more colossal than these in EZ Disposal, as a result, ABC Waste's trucks may carries more trash than EZ Disposal's or even the twice. Also, during EZ's ordering additional trucks there would be a quite long time, and numerous money on the spending, there is no guarantee those additional trucks whether would case a series of problems such as stuff wastage and financial overdraft, which causes EZ a depression period.



Thirdly, we do not know what question was asked in the survey, thus we could not evaluate whether the answer "satisfied" is significant. If there are 5 people on the survey then only 4 people responded to them, if those respondents are all in favor of EZ's serve coincidentally, if there is a class interests in the survey between the investigators and the respondents. Thus, this survey tends to be some specious.

Moreover, the author claim that last year's survey is based on the optimistic prediction that citizens' satisfaction will remain utterly unchanged in the future, yet, he ignores a series of changes that might happen just in the upcoming years. On the one hand, it is possible that the satisfaction of citizens would go down after several years such as economic crisis and mismanagement of company leaders. On the other, there is a chance for ABC Waste to develop a higher technology advancement which helps their management of trash collection that receives these citizens much satisfactions than Ez's.



To reiterate, the argument of the author is not convincing as it stands, before any final decisions are made, the author should share the same background of both EZ and ABC, and evaluates all possible alternatives and causes for the EZ Disposal is a better choice than ABC Waste.