【clover】ARGUMENT 17 by Misir (第六次作业)

misirUID: 2684938

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: 381
TIME: 00:36:05
DATE: 2010-2-18 19:36:46

The conclusion that the town's council made a mistake to switch from EZ to ABC seems obvious at first glance, however, the argument doesn't stand up to scrutiny for several reasons.

To begin with, the author ignores other causes that will lead to the raising monthly fee of EZ. From the letter, the author points out that the town council makes the decision only based on the raising monthly fee. Perhaps, the way to deal with the trash is the key point. It is likely that EZ just fills the trash into the fill land without any other process, while ABC imports an advanced technique to deal with the trash, which will benefit to the town's environment. Or perhaps, ABC not only collects trash, but also sorts the trash to recyclable ones and unrecyclable ones, and use the recycle ones to make new energy or return to the industry. Thus, the author must take these factors into account to draw a reasonable conclusion.

In addition, there is no evidence to show if the monthly fee had not raised the quality of EZ will decrease. The author fails to provide the reason why the monthly fee raised. If the monthly fee doesn't rise, what will happen? Will the frequency of collecting trash decline? We don't know. So the author should consider this to make the argument logical.

Finally, the reason why the raised monthly fee is reasonable is problematic. First, the frequency is not equal to the quality. Although EZ collect trash twice a week while ABC only once, maybe it due to the efficiency of the two companies. Secondly, the additional trucks may benefit to the customers, but we cannot ignore whether the old trucks were too worn-out to work so EZ needs additional trucks to complete the collection services. Thirdly, the survey is not reliable, for it lacks of detail information or statistics. If the author wants to jump to a persuasive conclusion, he or she must collect more information to make the evidence convincing.

In conclusion, to make the conclusion logically acceptable, the author must think twice about why the council makes the decision expect the raising monthly fee, and what will happen if the monthly fee do not rise, and whether the evidence is reasonable or need more information.

日落沙发UID: 2764889

The conclusion that the town's council made a mistake to switch from EZ to ABC seems obvious at first glance, however, the argument doesn't stand up to scrutiny for several reasons.（开头很简洁。不过我觉得如果稍微多复述一些内容的话，可以增加些文章的字数。一己之见，呵呵。）

To begin with, the author ignores other causes that （will）（could） lead to the raising monthly fee of EZ. From the letter, the author points out that the town council makes the decision only based on the raising monthly fee. Perhaps, the way to deal with the trash is the key point. It is likely that EZ just fills the trash into the fill land without any other process, while ABC imports an advanced technique to deal with the trash, which will benefit to the town's environment. Or perhaps, ABC not only collects trash, but also sorts the trash to recyclable ones and unrecyclable ones, and use the recycle ones to make new energy or return to the industry. Thus, the author must take these factors into account to draw a reasonable conclusion.

In addition, there is no evidence to show if the monthly fee had not raised the quality of EZ will decrease (加or not). The author fails to provide the reason why the monthly fee raised. If the monthly fee doesn't rise, what will happen? Will the frequency of collecting trash decline? We don't know. So the author should consider this to make the argument logical.

Finally, the reason why the raised monthly fee is reasonable is problematic. First, the frequency is not equal to the quality. Although EZ collect trash twice a week while ABC only once, maybe it （is）due to the efficiency of the two companies. Secondly, the additional trucks may benefit to the customers, but we cannot ignore whether the old trucks were too worn-out to work so EZ needs additional trucks to complete the collection services. Thirdly, the survey is not reliable, for it lacks of detail information or statistics. If the author wants to jump to a persuasive conclusion, he or she must collect more information to make the evidence convincing.

In conclusion, to make the conclusion logically acceptable, the author must think twice about why the council makes the decision expect the raising monthly fee, （and） what will happen if the monthly fee do not rise, and whether the evidence is reasonable or need more information.