=七月流火=小组第四次作业 argument 17 by ianking7368

ianking7368UID: 2655993

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: 422 (revised 496)
TIME: 00:28:00
DATE: 2009-8-24 下午 08:59:32

In this letter, the author indicates that due to a price increase, the council of Walnut Grove town choose ABC , rather than EZ
to collect waste in the town; however, the author concludes that the government should continue to use EZ. By comparing the differences in collecting frequency and trucks number and citing a result of a recent survey, the author's conclusion seems reasonable at first sight, however careful considerations reveals that the letter suffers from several flaws that make it less persuasive.

To begin with, the author unfairly presumes that it is because of the price increase that the council choose ABC, rather than EZ to collect waste. But actually the author doesn't give any convincing evidence to show this is the case. It is entirely possible that other reasons lead to this change. Perhaps ABC could offer more environmentally friendly ways to dispose the rubbish which is fit for the town's environment policy. If things are like that, then the author's following argument would be meaningless.

In addition, the proofs in the letter are not sufficient enough to prove that EZ's extra services are worth of the extra 500 dollars. It is true that ABC collects twice a week but EZ only collect once. But it doesn't mean ABC's service is better and worthwhile. Because maybe once a week is already enough to keep the town clean. Also, the author doesn't give any detailed description about the usage of the additional 20 trucks. It's possible that EZ would use them in other towns, and then it would have nothing to do with the improvement of service in Walnut Grove town. Furthermore, the survey may reflect the fact that majority of residents are satisfied with EZ's performance, but the survey itself lack comparisons. Perhaps after using ABC, more than 90 percent of residents would comment the service of ABC is "excellent". In short, a survey without comparison is not sufficient to show EZ's service is better and hence worthwhile.

Even if I concede that the extra service is worthy of
extra 500 dollars, the author may overlook another important possibilities that the town may suffer from a financial shortage this year. So the town budget should invest the limited money to other important areas such as education and public health, they have no money to afford this price increase. If this possibility can't be ruled out, the author can't convince me that town council should continue using EZ.

In summary, the author fails to support his conclusion adequately. To better support the conclusion, the author should firstly demonstrate that it is true that due to the price increase, the council refuses to use EZ. In addition, more persuasive proofs are need to show that EZ's service is really worth of 2500 dollars a month. Moreover, the town's financial conditions should also be taken into considered. Anyhow, a hasty conclusion without sufficient proofs may not help solve the problems, but may lead to new ones.