argument17 求砖头

admtzhengUID: 2785150

In this argument, the editor conclude that for the trash collection services of EZ Disposal(EZ) is more better than that of ABC Waste(ABC), so that Walnut Grove(WG) should continue using EZ. To support this recommendation, the author reasons that the times per week and trucks using for trash collecting of EZ's are both more than ABC's to indicate that EZ is more efficient than ABC. And he also cites a survey result to represent that most respondents are satisfied with EZ's service.

First, the editor assume that the times of collecting trash per week of EZ is twice of ABC's with a only one-quater augment of price of EZ, which indicates that EZ's cost performance is apparently higher than ABC's. However, that might not be the case. It is entirely possible that the residents in WG do not need the 2nd trash collection, because they do not have so much trash to full fill the dustdin which will need to be cleared to refill every week. Without ruling out this possibility, the editor cannot persuade me that the efficiency of EZ is higher than ABC's with considering the money input.

Secondly, the editor claims that EZ has ordered additional trucks with its original trucks being equal to ABC's. Although the editor suggests that EZ will collect more trash than ABC dose at the one time, he might overlooks other contingencies could lead the lower efficiency of EZ, such as the volume, the quality and the performance of the trucks. For example, EZ's truck might always had some malfuction and need to be fixed, this will not only take time to re-use and will cost EZ certain surcharge which will probably be made up by raising the price of service to customers. Or perhaps ABC's truck is bigger than EZ so that they can collect all the trash once instead of twice. Without considering these factors, the editor can not unconvincing assume that more trucks the trash company had, more efficient the service is.

Thirdly, the statistical reliable about the residents being satisfied with EZ's performance is suspicious. The editor doesn't provide the number of the respondents but only a percentage. For that matter, the number of the respondents might be few to construct a insufficient small sample to draw any conclusion that most other customers of EZ's are also satisfied with its service.
Lacking of such information, I can not accept that the statistical result is representative for the entire sample.

Finally, even assuming the editor can substantiate all foregoing assumptions that EZ is better, I still cannot accept the recommendation that WG should choose EZ , because the editor presents a false dilemma by impose a either or choice between EZ and ABC. While there might be other company which is better than both EZ and ABC. Without accounting all these possibilities, the editor cannot unfairly make the recommendation..

In sum, the argument is unconvincing as it stands. To strengthen it, the editor should show other more evidence that the residents of WG need much more times trash collection to clear up their big amount of trash. And he also need to provide that EZ's trucks are the same or even better that ABC's on performance. Even with these information I would need to know the percentage of participants for a representative sample of the survey and what the attitude of these respondents to other company like ABC is.

性价比：cost performance 垃圾箱 dustdin 本来不会胡乱表达的 后来查词典改的。