Arguement17 看了一下那篇arguement应该这样写之后写的

zhaohanUID: 2595904

17The 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."
提纲：
就算town concil 搞错了，EZ也不一定合适
何况town concil 不一定搞错了
ez本身的所谓可以选择的理由也有问题

2010-1-30 20:04-20:47
In the letter the editor argues that the town council should continue using EZ for trash collection. To support his recommendation, he cites the frequency of collecting trash and the additional tracks as evidence. Besides, the author recommends a survey to inform the majority of respondents were satisfied with EZ’s performance. Well-represented and logical reasoning though at first sight, the recommendation can hardly stand up to any scrutiny for its apparent flaws:

First of all, granted that the council is mistaken, the author fail to convince us that we should continue hiring EZ. On the one hand, the author fail to consider what actually influence the choice. For example, it is entirely possible that EZ’s method of dealing with the trash have influence on the environment as well as the health of residents. On the other hand, other companies are ruled out unfairly. Perhaps there are better choice except EZ and ABC. To sum up, unless having considered all of these possibilities, the conclusion is supposed to be unwarranted.

Furthermore, there is no sufficient evidence shows that the town council is mistaken. We are not reported any details about the ABC company. Firstly, even though the EZ has contract the track collection for the past ten years, the ABC may be more effective and meet the town’s special demands at some aspects like ecology and clean. Meanwhile, as the author mentioned, the ABC’s fee is low. Under the condition that we don’t know whether the additional investment in EZ is deserved, the ABC may be a better choice.

Last but not the least, the evident provided by the editor also suffer from apparent flaws: Firstly,the frequency and the additional tracks can not directly indicate the level of service because we don’t know the partically circumstance of the town so that we can not assess whether the town need more tracks to collect the trash. Secondly, lacking the fraction of the respondents among all the persons who involved in the survey as well as the base amount of respondents, the editor can not hastily claim that they are representative. Moreover, more residents may feel more satisfied to other company after a compare.Thirdly, there is no information revealing that the company’s service is improved as the price raised.

In conclusion, the author unfairly conclude that hiring EZ would be a wise choice on the assumption that the quality of service is better than ABC despite of the high price. To strengthen the recommendation, the author should provide directly evidence that the service of EZ is of high level as well as fairly price and perhaps a more reliable survey is needed.