Argument17 第一篇

hugozhaoUID: 2849523

17.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.


The arguer attempts to convince us that it is wrong for Walnut Grove's council to switch from EZ Disposal to ABC Waste even if the former has raised its monthly fee for 25%.To substantiate the claim, the arguer provide the evidence that EZ collects trash twice a week while ABC collects once and that EZ is going to add the number of its tracks. In addtion, the arguer provides a survey result reveals that 80% of respondents are satisfied with EZ last year. This argument is problematic for several reasons.


The major problem of the argument is that little information about ABC Waste is provided except the contradistinction of price and the frequency they collecting trash between it and EZ. The arguer failed to inform us of the quality, the reputation in the field, or the responses of other towns which using ABC. The possibility that the arguer himself knows little about ABC exists, and it is reasonable to believe that the form of the responses of the survey provided is also under the circumstance which lacking information about ABC.

In addtion, the frequency of the two company collecting trash, which the arguer concern about, is also problematic. There is no data demonstrate how often Walnut Grove needs to collect its trash. If it is enough to collect trash once a week, the other collect EZ dose wound be unnecessary and the additional trucks EZ ordered-whether used for the town or not-are a waste of money.

Finally, even if collecting trash twice a week and more tracks are necessary, it dose not means people of the town have to choose EZ Disposal. The financial condition of the town is also an aspect the arguer ignored. If people believe that other fields such as education and medical are more important than trash collecting to invest money in and they do not want to raise the budget, ABC seems to be the only choice.

To sum up, the conclusion lacks important information and credibility. Because what the arguer insists might be unreasonable under many possible situations. To better evaluate the argument, the arguer would have to provide more information concerning the service of ABC Waste, the exact demand for trash collecting of the town and the financial conditions. Moreover, the arguer have to provide a convince result of survey representing the wishes of the livers of the town.