argument11----欢迎拍文

neverjustUID: 2848024

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 aluminum 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 argument presented above seems logical at the first glance,however the author fails to consider all the elements essential to evaluate his situation.The author holds the conclusion that the available space in West Egg(WE) town's landfill will last for considerably longer than predicted which was based on some unfairly assumptions.Let me analyze them below.

To begin with,the mayor said residents of WE have been recycling twice as much aluminum and paper as they did in previous years.Yet he doesn't provide the actual data of the recycling information in previous years,so maybe the doubled quantity was just insignificant.And though residents would recycle more paper and alominum,it does not mean the other kinds of garbage,like plastic and glass,will be recycled either.So just collect morepaper and aluminum may not help.

In addition,the fact charges for garbage pick up will increase can not make sure the amount of meterial recycling would get more.There may some meterial trash would not be collected at all.And it's possible that the quantity of this kind of meterial refuse was huge.So just the increase of charge may not affect the amount of material garbage,and the whole quantity of the waste.   

What's more,the process of the survey is open to doubt.Are the respondents representive?The author didn't provide what fraction of residents have attended the suevey.We don't know the life style of those respondents as well.Maybe only the people who have strong commitment to do recycle are more likely to take part in a survey like this.So,even if 90 percent of reply is people would like to recycle more garbage in future,it doesn't mean the quantity of recycler is increasing and will increase in the next years.

All in all,there are several facets are questionable in this argument,to bolster it,the mayer should take account more information,and analyze the situation more carefully.