Argument 17 望高人指点.. 热泪感谢

tiantian2965UID: 2578476

17The 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."


In the letter, the author suggests that GW should continue its waste disposal contract with E. The suggestion might seem advisable, furthre scrutiny, however, might reveal that his threshold assumption that A cannot be E’s rival is unwarranted. There are also several flaws in his evidence upon which he makes hie final conclusion.

To begin with, the author falsely implies that A cannot provide disposal service as satisfactory as E does. This is an unwarranted assumption only if he can provide more information about A other than merely the frequence of service. Such information should include the reputaion of A, A’s business credibility, A’s waste disposal related technique and so on. In addition, considering the fact that GW had waste collection contract with E for 10 years, it’s entirely possible that GW’s citizens as well as the author himself know little about A. Thus under the premise that E recently raised its service fee, there is no convincible reason to persuade GW’s council continue waste disposal contract with E.

Furthermore, the evidence the author uses to justify his suggestion is not persuasive. First, he states that E provides collection service twice a week while A only collects once. However, he failed to clarify whether that one more time collection is necessary or not. If twice collection is unnecessary, even though E charges 25% more fees while doing 50% more work, it’ s still a waste for GW’s citizens.

He also mentions that E had purchased additional trucks. Thus he infers that GW will receiver more service from E. Examed more carefully, we can find that there is no causal relationship between the two. It’s entirely possible that the new trucks won’t be allocated in GW but in E’s other service region. Needless to say that the original number of truck is probably already far enough for GW’s waste disposal. There is no need for purchasing new trucks at all.

Finally, the survey mentioned in his statement is also suspicious. We are told nothing about the way the poll was conducted and how well it represented the public opinions. If only customers who are satisfied with E’s service participated the survey, it will lose the power to make the conclusion that E’s service is overall satisfactory. Besides, even though GW’s citizens are satisfied with E, it doesn’t guarantee they would like to pay for 25% more service fee for such service.

To sum up, from the discussion above, the author’s suggestion of continuing contract with E is unreasonable and unfair. If he wants to persuade the city council, the author should provide more detailed facts about A’s overall information, actual waste disposal needs of GW and maybe the reason why E raised its price before he makes such premature suggestion which might mislead people.