argument17【clover】by a08805436

a08805436UID??2725634

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: 426
TIME: 00:30:00
DATE: 2010/2/8 21:32:27

Due to the fact that EZ Disposal collects trash twice a week, currently has ordered additional trucks and provides exceptional service, the author recommends that they should continue using EZ. At first sight, the argument seems to be justifiable, but close scrutiny reveals that these evidences neither constitute a logical statement in support of the recommendation nor providing compelling support making this argument sound and invulnerable.

First and foremost, the author unfairly assumes that the service of EZ is better than that of ABC Waste for the mere reason that EZ collects trash twice while ABC collects only once. However, the argument provides no evidence to substantiate it. Lacking such evidence it is entirely possible that ABC Waste takes full use of the one time and collects the trash all over the town while EZ has hardly finished their work. If so, then on the basis of frequency of collection it would make no sense to favor EZ’s costlier service over ABC’s less expensive one.

Secondly, the author points out that they should choose EZ because it has ordered additional trucks recently. Yet the argument contains no evidence to show that EZ would use additional trucks in the Walnut Grove. Without ruling out these and other possible scenarios, it is entirely possible that EZ will use the additional trucks in other areas rather than in Walnut. Moreover, even assuming that EZ would probably use the additional trucks in Walnut, the argument does not indicate when EZ will use the new trucks. The later they use it, the less significant this factor should be in Walnut' decision.

Finally, the argument cites a result of the survey that 80 percent of respondents agreed that they were satisfied with EZ's performance. Yet the argument provides no other information about the extent and object of the survey. Maybe the survey is carried out in some rural areas that the respondents shows no representativeness of the whole population group, or that there are only a limited number of people, say, ten people, has taken this survey and the 80 percent proves nothing about the reliability of the survey.

To sum up, the conclusion reached by the author lacks credibility since the argument has several flaws which render it unpersuasive as it stands. To make it more convincing, further investigation about the performance of both EZ and ABC are needed. To better evaluate the argument, I would also need to know the object and the extent of the survey and other trash collection enterprises other than the two mentioned in the argument.