Argument17 求修改（这是我的第一片Argu）非常感谢！

rosierlUID: 2883686

No.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."

                                                                                                                                          
In this letter, the editor of the Walnut Grove town newspaper recommends that people should continue using EZ Disposal rather than ABC Waste. To support this recommendation, the editor cites the result of a survey that points out that 8 to 10 people are satisfied with EZ. Moreover, the editor points out that EZ collects trash frequently. And it is willing to have more trucks than ABC. Careful examination of these supporting evidences, however, reveals that it lends little credible support to the editor’s claim.
First of all, according to the fact that EZ collects rubbish twice a week, while ABC only does once, the editor thinks that EZ deserves to advocate. But he doesn’t offer more detailed information to proof whether it is necessary for Walnut Grove’s people to collect trash twice per week or not. Perhaps people in the Walnut Grove have not so much trash to throw. Collecting rubbish once a week is likely to be fine.
Moreover, the editor points out that EZ is ordering extra trucks for service. But he does not give the information about ABC. Maybe ABC has already had much more trucks than EZ. Is it needed to have so many trucks for EZ? If not, EZ is just wasting money. It appears to be reasonable, therefore, for people in the Walnut Grove to focus on the fact whether there is any organization collecting their trash or not rather than the number of the trucks the organization has.
Finally, samples for the survey should be statistically reliable. Unfortunately, the survey the editor cites can not present all the people. We are not informed that how many people were surveyed. If, for instance, 500 people were studied, but the city has the population of more than 50,000, the conclusion would be highly susceptible. Thus I doubt whether the respondents constitute a sufficiently large sample so as to be representative of the overall population of the nation.
In conclusion, the editor’s argument is not persuasive. In fact, it is neither sound nor persuasive. Not only does it leave out such key issues, but also cites in the analysis of the evidence, which does not lend strong support to what arguer claims. To bolster it, the editor must provide more details about the people’s attitude to EZ and ABC and more information about the current condition of EZ and ABC for comparison. If the argument includes the given factors discussed above, it would have been more thorough and adequate.

yinxingxiaoyaUID: 2595671

帮顶。明天写第一篇