Argument NO.17【六人行】by CrazyJoO

crazyjooUID: 2805124

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: 502
TIME: 00:44:01
DATE: 2000-7-26 14:31:27



The arguer recommends that town council should keep hiring EZ Disposal. To make it more convincing, the arguer points out that EZ collects trash more frequently and is to have more trucks than ABC and only needs extra 500 dollars a months. In addition, the arguer cites a survey which indicates that over than three quarters of people are satisfied with EZ.

Firstly, the arguer hastily assumes that more frequent trash collections will benefit the Walnut Grove town. Perhaps collection of trash once a week can fully meet the town's need. In this respect, the extra collection of trash is meaningless. And the extra 500 dollars fee is a sort of waste. Without careful investigation about the condition of the landfill of Walnut Grove town , the arguer's conclusion is irresponsible.

Secondly, the arguer fails to pay enough attention to the change in monthly fee of EZ Disposal. It is possible that the EZ recently raised its monthly fee because the charger of EZ might think that since the contract for trash collection services in Walnut Grove had last for ten years, it stood a good chance that the contract will continue for another ten years. Thus, having no any awareness of competition, EZ raised its monthly fee without any discussion with the Walnut Grove town council. All in all, the arguer fails to take the cause of this increase of price into consideration. Therefore, the town council may risk squandering economic resource.

Thirdly, additional trucks do not stand for EZ's more commitment to quality. Perhaps these additional trucks would be used to serve other cities. Or perhaps EZ would not to hire adequate managers along with those additional trucks.Understandably, the quality and effectiveness of EZ's managment would be too ineffiency to control all the trucks and hence arouse vague divison of labor. Therefore, the additional trucks is actually counterproductive to the company. Without ruling these or other possibilities, the aruger cannot justifiably render that EZ is a better choice due to its additional trucks.

Finally, the last year's town survey do not guarantee representativeness and validity. Common sense informs us that people tent to respond to objectives with which they had concerned. Thus, those respondents' opinion cannot stand for the attitude of all the residents in Walnut Grove town. Even though, the result of the study was persuasive as it stood. However, result will be more interesting and helpful to the town council's current decision about the employment of EZ Disposal or ABC Waste if it could reflect people's attitude toward ABC Waste. Perhaps the approval rate of ABC Waste is much higher than EZ Disposal.

To sum up, the argument is well presented, but not thoroughly reasoned. To make it more logically acceptable, the arguer should make a comprehensive analysis over the EZ Disposal's additional trucks and to make sure that more frequent trash collection is beneficial. Furthermore, the argument will be more substantiated if we could know the approval rate of ABC Waste from the last year's town survey.

Eileen312UID: 2648750

The arguer recommends that town council should keep hiring EZ Disposal. To make it more convincing, the arguer points out that EZ collects trash more frequently and is to have more trucks than ABC[作者也没有直接说more啊，只是暗含着一些“想当然”的逻辑。可以直接替作者点出吗？欢迎探讨] and only needs extra 500 dollars a months. In addition, the arguer cites a survey which indicates that over than three quarters of people are satisfied with EZ.

Firstly, the arguer hastily assumes that more frequent trash collections will benefit the Walnut Grove town. Perhaps collection of trash once a week can fully meet the town's need. In this respect, the extra collection of trash is meaningless. And the extra 500 dollars fee is a sort of waste. Without careful investigation about the condition of the landfill of Walnut Grove town , the arguer's conclusion is irresponsible.

Secondly, the arguer fails to pay enough attention to the change in monthly fee of EZ Disposal. It is possible that the EZ recently raised its monthly fee because the charger of EZ might think
that since the contract for trash collection services in Walnut Grove had last for ten years, it stood a good chance that the contract will [would] continue for another ten years. Thus, having no any[any就不要了吧] awareness of competition, EZ raised its monthly fee without any discussion with the Walnut Grove town council. All in all, the arguer fails to take the cause of this increase of price into consideration. Therefore, the town council may risk squandering economic resource.

Thirdly, additional trucks do not stand for EZ's more commitment to quality. Perhaps these additional trucks would be used to serve other cities. Or perhaps EZ would not to hire adequate managers along with those additional trucks.Understandably, the quality and effectiveness of EZ's management[management] would be too ineffiency[inefficiency] to control all the trucks and hence arouse vague divison[division] of labor. Therefore, the additional trucks is [are]actually counterproductive to the company. Without ruling these or other possibilities, the aruger cannot justifiably render that EZ is a better choice due to its additional trucks.

Finally, the last year's town survey do[又是一个ETS不在乎的小错误] not guarantee representativeness and validity. Common sense informs us that people tent to respond to objectives with which they had concerned. Thus[这个thus前后的因果关系不是很清楚哎], those respondents' opinion cannot stand for the attitude of all the residents in Walnut Grove town. Even though, the result of the study was persuasive as it stood[???这句有点莫名其妙]. However, result will be more interesting and helpful to the town council's current decision about the employment of EZ Disposal or ABC Waste if it could reflect people's attitude toward ABC Waste. Perhaps the approval rate of ABC Waste is much higher than EZ Disposal.

To sum up, the argument is well presented, but not thoroughly reasoned. To make it more logically acceptable, the arguer should make a comprehensive analysis over the EZ Disposal's additional trucks and to make sure that more frequent trash collection is beneficial. Furthermore, the argument will be more substantiated if we could know the approval rate of ABC Waste from the last year's town survey.

[Good job! O(∩_∩)O~]

Eileen312UID: 2648750

It is possible that the EZ recently raised its monthly fee because the charger of EZ might think that since the contract for trash collection services in Walnut Grove had last for ten years, it stood a good chance that the contract will [would] continue for another ten years.
全都用的过去时，will在从句中当然也要用过去时了。