第一篇argument 求指点！

johnliang415UID: 2872863

【题目】
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."


【正文】
In this letter, the editor opposes the decision of the council to switch the waste disposal company by citing several advantages of EZ: 1) the higher frequency of waste collection; 2) the larger number of trucks; 3) offering exceptional service; a survey showing the high support to EZ is also provided. However, after a close scrutiny, the argument is not as persuasive as it stands.

Firstly, the fact that the frequency of collection of EZ is higher than ABC lends no support to the efficiency of EZ. It is entirely possible that the disposal ability of EZ is not as good as ABC so they need to collect the waste twice a week and dispose the waste separately. In contrast, ABC has the ability of large-amount disposal operation. For that matter, the cost of transportation for EZ is higher; perhaps the pressure of cost is exactly the reason EZ raises its price.

Secondly, the editor offers a fact that EZ has more trucks than ABC, which also contribute nothing to the efficiency of EZ. Perhaps, since EZ served the area for ten years, the trucks of EZ are old and small. However, EZ need to order additional trucks to maintain the qualified ability of collection, which ABC has no such trouble for its brand-new trucks. It is also possible that the additional trucks EZ ordered are not serving for the job in WG town.

Thirdly, EZ providing exceptional service for the town still fails to support his efficiency. The exceptional service may be not related to the disposal job, which is probably unnecessary for the town. The editor also proves nothing to explain whether this exceptional service is charged or not, or the residents are satisfying with the service or not. Maybe the service is overcharged depending on EZ’s domination.

Finally, the survey of high satisfaction with EZ doesn’t indicate that the resident will not satisfy with ABC. Although the performance survey of EZ is good, the resident will recognize ABC instead after they have a comparison. However, it is also possible that the survey is hold by EZ itself; the credit of the survey is low and reflects none of the real opinions of the residents.

In conclusion, the argument is unconvinced for so many faults. It is prejudice for the editor to oppose the decision of the council just because of the monthly cost. There must be many specifics the editor needs to know and provide. The frequency of waste collection, the trucks amount and the exceptional service don’t contribute to the efficiency of EZ at all. Moreover, the survey may also be unpersuasive. To better analyze the decision, more performance and background information of these two companies need to be provided. The editor also needs to clarify the source of the survey.


写完后我比对了了一下北美范文中同一题，我发现我在题目中红色标出的“exceptional service”在范文中一点都没有提到。我不知道这是否是一个应该攻击的点呢？
谢谢~！