argument11

quechuangyiUID: 2761926

TOPIC: ARGUMENT11 - The following appeared in a memo from the mayor of the town of West Egg.

"Two years ago, our consultants predicted that West Egg's landfill, which is used for garbage disposal, would be completely filled within five years. During the past two years, however, town residents have been recycling twice as much aluminium and paper as they did in previous years. Next month the amount of material recycled should further increase, since charges for garbage pickup will double. Furthermore, over ninety percent of the respondents to a recent survey said that they would do more recycling in the future. Because of our residents' strong commitment to recycling, the available space in our landfill should last for considerably longer than predicted."



The mayor concentrates on the fact that the garbage recycled will be increased, and accordingly, he draws a conclusion that the West Egg's landfill would not be completely filled within five years. Yet the author ignores the other aspect which also contributes to how long the landfill would last, as is expressed
as follows.



Whether the West Egg's landfill would last for five years or considerably longer than that, not only depends on the rate of the garbage which is recycled, but also the rate of producing. If people in the West Egg town produce much more litter which overwhelms the recycled part, than ever before, the increasing recyled garbage might make no sense in prolonging the time that the landfill can be used. For that mater, the landfill might even stand much shorter than the consultants' prediction-- -- shorter than five years.




Moreover, as we all know that to make a commitment is one thing, but to put it into practice is another. While over ninety percent of the respondents said they would do more recycling in the future,
the mayor could not make sure that they would really abide with their promise. If it is the case, the amount of the recycled garbage would even not increase, neglecting whether the production of the wastes would probably boost.



Considering that the amount of the new-produced garbage is more and the recycled part is less meanwhile, I strongly suspect the mayor's conclusion that the available space for burying the garbage would last long than predicted .



Additionally, we are not informed of the constitution of the garbage filled in the landfill. It is entirely possible that the garbage is composed of peels and rags, instead of aluminium or paper. Thus, the twice as much aluminium and paper recycled might make no contribution to decrease the garbage. It also the same case with that if the garbage was all that cannot be recycled. Then no matter how high the pickup's price is charged, the garbage that should have been buried in the landfill would not decimate due to the recycle measurement.




To sum up, I can not agree with the mayor's claim that the landfill should last for considerably longer than predicted. The mayor should offer the statistics about the amount of the garbage's being generated every day, and make sure that the measurement to recycle part of the garbage really helps; after weighing the two aspects-- -- the source and disposal of the garbage, the mayor could draw a more convincing conclusion.