=七月流火=小组第4次小组作业 Argument17 by knx1029

knx1029UID: 2609556

    In this argument, the author recommends the town council should continue to use EZ Disposal for the trash collection service rather than any other companies. To support his recommendation, he compares EZ with ABC Waste, and cites a survey which suggests that most respondents were satisfied with EZ's performance. Careful examination of this evidence, however, reveals that it lends little credible support to the author's claim.
    Above all, the three comparisons between EZ Disposal and ABC Waste can hardly prove the author's claim that former works better than the latter. First, the author provides no information about the condition of the town, thus we cannot evaluate whether the second trash collection is essential. If the second trash collects is dispensable, the EZ Disposal may have no advantage over ABC Waste in this aspect. Secondly, the author's conclusion rests on the mere fact that EZ orders new trucks. But the ordering cannot reflects any fact. It is entirely possible that the old trucks' breaking down or the low efficiency in the trash collection forces the company to order more trucks for use. If this is the case, it will undoubtedly undermine the author's recommendation. Thirdly, the result of the survey is open to doubt. The author provides no statistic about the number of respondents, which prevents us from further assessing the reliability of the survey. Moreover, no survey about the citizens' satisfaction with ABC Waste is conducted. Perhaps the respondents are more satisfied with ABC. Lacking this evidence, the author's conclusion is completely unconvincing.
    Additionally, the reason that the cost of ABC is less than EZ is worthy taken to some extent. To be specific, if the town council meets financial problems, to alleviate the burden,  slightly reducing the expenditure on trash collection is an appropriate solution. With these similar factors considered, the author's hasty recommendation is not feasible and useful.
    What's more, the author's recommendation rests on the unlikely assumption that the town council has only two alternatives EZ Disposal and ABC Waste. Yet this is not necessarily the case, there can be many other trash collection companies in the town which may be over both EZ and ABC.Failing to account for this alternatives, the author cannot convince me that EZ is the best option for the town.
    In conclusion, the recommendation about the continued use of EZ Disposal is not cogent at all. To bolster the his opinion, the author should provide more evidence to prove that EZ performs really better over ABC and over any other companies and that the town council has little difficulties in paying for EZ's collecting fee.