Phoenix小组组员7号 argument

zhouliyun0923UID: 2563174

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: 387          TIME: 00:29:34          DATE: 2010-1-26 21:29:03

The author claimed in the text that the city councilof Walnut Grove has made a mistaken decision, using the ABC Waste instead of EZ Disposal in the next year. The statement seemed quite reasonable and logoical at the first sight but  all the reasons the author use to support his or her view are not enough but have some logical flaws.
Firstly of all, all through the memo, writer emphasised on the fact that the cheap price and the effect of the two companies,but failed to tell us whether the information he or she supplied was cared by the local residents.We have no idea about the residents'opinion about whether they care more about the total amount of the money or they care more about the effeciency of the service.The different situation will lead to different choice between the two companies.
Secondly,the local residents did satisfied with the EZ' service as it was stated in the paragraph.However it have no relationship with the another possibility that these citizens will also be satisfied about the service provided by ABC company,which might also be quite good.So it might be also a better choice for the local people to choose the new one with a cheaper price and the same satisfactory.
Thirdly,the survey conducted on the exceptional service did not indicate the percentage of people joined in were local and the number of the respondents could be big enough to be regarded as objective.For people from different place might have qutie varying attitudes towards the same things.Such number from a no depandable investigation did not worth believing ,not to say to be used as a prove.
Last but not the least,the exceptional service did not have the direct links with the service the company should supply.Let alone the service quality the company should be responsible for.Few words has been given for the main product of the company,so it is quite confusing about the comparison about the  two companies.
As it stands,the argument is not well reasoned.To make it logically acceptable,the arguer would have to demonstrate that the service provided by the two companies are compared with the objective results and figures.And the local residents real cares and according with the care to make the decision.Addionally,the arguer must provide evidence to rule out all the above-mentioned possilbities that might weaken the argument.

zhouliyun0923UID: 2563174

TOPIC: ARGUMENT2 - The following appeared in a letter sent by a committee of homeowners from the Deerhaven Acres to all homeowners in Deerhaven Acres.

"Seven years ago, homeowners in nearby Brookville community adopted a set of restrictions on how the community's yards should be landscaped and what colors the exteriors of homes should be painted. Since then, average property values have tripled in Brookville. In order to raise property values in Deerhaven Acres, we should adopt our own set of restrictions on landscaping and housepainting."


In this statement, the auther suggests that the changing of the community's yards and the colors of the exteriors of homes make the tripled value of the property.At the first glance,the short argument looks logical and reasonable,but in fact it contains some logical flaws,which undermine its credibility.

First of all,the so-called reason shows no direct relationship between the solution in the argument.The restrictions on how the yard's landscapining and the colors be painted maybe has influenced on the growing price of the Brookville community,however the memo failed to prove the direct link between the result and the caurse. And also we may assume that there are other reasons also result to the final ending,such as the improvement of local traffic,or some big bussiness centers have located nearby in the past several years,which perhaps do more effects on the increasing value.

Secondly,the 7-year-ago assumption that is used support the idea right now also is a logical defaults.The moving of time pushes the moving and the development of everthing in the world, in the same way,the assumption may not still be the caurse of the conclusion.There is possilblity that the local people tend to have the its own colors or other likeness.So it is not an easy job to simplify the same relationship as it seems.

Thirdly,different conlutions cannot applied to all the other situations.The conclusion while it is true that the varying can lead to the adding of the price of the Brookville community,may also not be true of others such as the the eerhaven Acres.The unique characteristics make the matching difficult.

In conclusion,the article is not well substantiated as it stands.Before I can accept this argument,clear evidence and  reasonable evidence must be shown and the direct logical relationship can be got from the memo.The direct several reasons that have fueled the value of the local community must be listed and showed the effects.And the auther should tell us more about the backgound of the  social issue,especially on the economy or policy part,which might help us to analysis the problem.