argument17 ~_~...哪位高手来指点指点我啊！！！

sunxfengUID: 2594698

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."


The author suggests that people in Walnet Grove (WG) should continue using EZ Disposal instead of changing to ABC Waste for three reasons: EZ collets trash twice per week other than once with ABC; EZ has more trucks than ABC; and 80 percent of residents are satisfied about EZ's service. It seems specious at the first glance, but a careful scrutiny will reveal several points are still shadowed in doubt.

First of all, we can't know the other reasons explained for the changing made by WG's town council besides the money difference. All the author struggles to stress here is that EZ has his reasons for a higher fee. But what if the council discard EZ for other equally, if not more, important aspects? For example, ABC might have a more effective and environment-friendly waste process system, which would recycle the renewable wastes and produce energy with those organic wastes. While, EZ might have still been using the older waste dispose system, which has caused myriads detrimental effects to environment and residents' health. thus, even EZ has his reasonable reason for raising his fee, we still should not use it any more.

But, unfortunately, EZ have not give us a credible explanation for his money increase. Even we did know that EZ collects trash twice per week, have additional trucks and a sounds-nice performance, what might be ignore here is that EZ collects trash twice with 20 trucks before money-rising, and could still have a high satisfaction---why it must raise his fee now? Is it because it has brought new trucks recently? But if we can have a good service without the extra trucks, why should we pay for those? In short, EZ must give us an rational explanation about the use of increased money before we reconsider them as our trash collection servicer.

Furthermore, the three reason the author cites to defend EZ are all undefendable. First of all, EZ collect one more time than ABC does not amount to they have high server quality. And we do not know whether citizens in WG are willing to pay extra $5oo for an additional collection. Secondly, EZ do have more trucks, but are all the trucks have a highly usage rate? Maybe they bought more trucks because the former ones are nearly expired? Finally, he/she tells us that 80 percent of respondents are satisfied with EZ’s performance, while he/she parry the questions like how many residents are participated in that survey, how many of them responded, and are they chosen randomly?

In sum, the author would definitely fails to persuade the council to change their decision for all the mistakes he/she makes which I point out above.

龟速啊  我都想死了 到现在还没有提速上去 30min 只写了前面300字 55555....