Argument11

Luise8891UID: 2906459

11The 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."

dreamerdanceUID: 2759402

1.论断的前提是回收垃圾会使得该坑的使用速度降低从而使用年限增加。（首先质疑最根本）但实际上这并没有保障。对于该坑使用年限的预测是在两年前做出来的，且不论其是否准确，但当时该市制造垃圾的速度可能没有现在快。也就是说，尽管回收垃圾能够减少垃圾的增长，但是如果该市的垃圾总量，尤其是不能被回收的垃圾增长迅速的话，将抵消垃圾回收带来的作用，甚至有可能该坑会比预测的年限更早使用完。很显然，论据中没有提供任何这方面的资料。
2．即使大前提成立，论据仍然不够支持论点。首先，铝和纸物品在日常的垃圾中所占的比重是多少，该种物品的减少对于垃圾总量的意义是什么？即使是大部分，这两年居民在铝和纸上的回收行为并不能保证他们会坚持或是推广到其他物品中去，而且而对于调查，论者没有提供资料以表明被访问者是否具有代表性，调查又是否科学是否采取了措施以保证调查准确反映该市对于垃圾回收的做法，比如说访问的数量、性别比例、年龄段的比例以及行业比例等等。
3．论者的认为从下个月起重复利用的垃圾还会增加，因为垃圾回收的费用提高了。但是垃圾会不会被重复利用，首先取决于它能不能被重复利用，而不是要不要为垃圾回收付出更高费用。当然，提高费用会促使居民将更多的可重复利用的垃圾重复利用，但如果现在居民已经做到了这点，提高费用并不必然得会使得重复利用上升。不过有关居民日常垃圾中有多少是可重复利用的，论者没有提供。
4．即使以上前提成立，但是除了由居民制造的日常垃圾以外其他的垃圾比如工业垃圾的情况怎么样？没有资料进行比较，论断得出得太仓促。

结论：论者的结论太过草率。要想具体了解重复利用垃圾对于垃圾增长的作用，论者还需要做大量进一步的调查，比如目前垃圾增长的速度,有多少是可被重复利用的，居民可以回收的量又是多少,对于重复利用的垃圾的具体态度，工业垃圾是怎么处理的,等等。只有了解了这些，才能得出正确结论。

Luise8891UID: 2906459

1)The fact that during the past two years, however, town residents have been recycling twice as much aluminum and paper as they did in previous years does not lend much support to the assumption that in the past two years,more space than predicted were left due to the increasing of recycling.first,Since the aluminum and paper might be selled for better price than other recyclable garbage,the increase of recycling of them does not mean the recycling of others are also increasing.Then,the arguer fails to provide any details about the percentages of aluminum and paper accounting for the all garbage.It is likely that they only take a small part.Finally,no direct evidence about the exact volume of garbage has been given to prove that the space available is more than pridicted.maybe more garbage than predicted is stored in the past two years.
2)the arguer fails to convince us that in the next three years ,the amount of material recycled will increase simply by his assumption that next month the amount of material recycled should further increase, since charges for garbage pickup will double.first,his assumption about the increase of the amount of material recycled is open to doubt.No evidence has been given to prove that residents there are willing to recycle their garbage for a small amount of money.Maybe they are very rich and do not need that kind of money.Second,even if the kind of money is appealing to the local citizens ,but the market never ceases to change and there is no guarantee that the charges for garbage will stay high enough to appeal residents to recycle it for money.
3)The recent survey is not sufficient to show the resident’s srong commitment to recycling .First,the arguer fails to provide solid details about the survey.How many respondents are involved?What are the respondents,well-educated or not,old people or young peole?The number of respondets must be large enough,then 90% is convincing.and also the sample should cover all the background of respondents ,including all professions ,different levels of education ,and different age.Then,even if the sample highly meets the demands mentioned above,it is still open to doubt that all of those who strongly commited to recycling would keep their promise.