=七月流火=小组第4次小组作业 Argument 17 by maggiegu1019

maggiegu1019UID: 2683879

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: 522
TIME: 00:30:00
DATE: 2009-8-26 11:15:32

Resting on insufficient evidence of the EZ has a better service, supposing that the more expensive the better service, then synthesizing the two assumptions together with a survey provided by EZ, the arguer recommends that the EZ Disposal should be still used while not ABC Waste. The argument is fraught with vague, oversimplified and unwarranted assumptions.

In the first place, the insufficient evidence provided in the argument fails to lend a solid validate .No evidence provided in the argument can support that the EZ Disposal is better than ABC Waste.
EZ Disposal clean twice a week does not mean a better choice for the reason that the waste in the town may be not numerous to a point where cleaning twice is necessary. May be just one time per week to collect the waste is enough. The 20 trucks and ordered additional trucks provided to suppose that EZ Disposal is a proper choice for our town, while it unreasonable. Since no evidence show how many cars the ABC company has, even the amount of EZ cars is really larger than that of ABC Waste, it does not mean a better service, may be the EZ's business is covered the city while ABC is only a town company which only take charge the business in our town. Perhaps the EZ has 20 cars while only used for our town, in contrast the ABC has two trucks totally and both the two trucks are used to serve our town. In that, the arguer can not draw a conclusion that the EZ Disposal is better than ABC Waste.

In the second place, the argument commits a fallacy of casual relationship. The lower in price can not be considered as the prerequisite to worse services. There exists no direct relationship between the two elements. There exists a possibility that the EZ Disposal increase their fees only for the reason that they are lacking of competition and consider they themselves are already committed and accepted by the local people. Besides, perhaps the ABC is a company newly running, to share market the ABC offer better service with lower price. Therefore, this assumption provided by the arguer is not convincing.


In the third place, the argument rest on an unscientific, unwarranted survey. Therefore, the result will be inaccurate and open to question. The arguer consider EZ provide exceptional service ,while nothing about ABC Waste is presented .Maybe ABC also have these services, which are even better and broader than EZ Disposal. The arguer do not show what questions were asked in the survey than we can not evaluate what is the 'satisfied' means, maybe the questions are nothing about their service. It is still possible that the respondents of the EZ are not random selection and the amount of respondents is not large enough, in this sense the result will be lacking of statistical significant and unconvincing.


As it stands, the argument is not well reasoned .To make it logically acceptable, more evidence should be presented to demonstrate the EZ do provide better service than ABC Waste and the extra 500 dollars is valuable for a better service.

dongzhi428UID: 2556730

修改的回复 在你的ISSUE 里了 注意查收~