Argument17 附提纲，敬请大家随便拍，必回拍

Archer1123UID: 206148

ＡＲＧＵＭＥＮＴ　总频率３５
ARGUMENT17. 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."
翻译：
Walnut Grove的市委提议选择ABC Waste，而不是EZ Disposal（它是过去十年中和Walnut Grove签约提供垃圾收集服务的机构），因为EZ最近把他们每月的收费从$2000提高到了$2500，而ABC仍然是$2000。但市委是错误的，我们应该继续使用EZ。EZ每周收集两次垃圾，而ABC只收集一次。而且，EZ当前的卡车拥有量和ABC一样都是20辆，但它已定购了更多的车辆。最后，EZ还提供优越的服务：去年市镇调查中80％的回应者同意他们对于EZ的表现是"满意"的。
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
1.        是否有必要收两次垃圾
2.        定购更多的车辆不能保证就可以提高服务
3.        survey不能证明EZ的服务比ABC好
In the editorial, the author recommends that the Walnut Grove (WG) town council should not switch EZ Disposal to ABC Waste even though ABC's weekly fee is $500 less than EZ's. In order to buttress the recommendation, the author points out some EZ's advantages: EZ collects twice per week whereas ABC only once; and EZ has ordered additional trucks and 80% responders in a survey were satisfied with EZ’s performance. Under a close scrutiny, we can find that the editorial does not persuasive as it stands in that there are three flaws in the argument at least.

To begin with, there is no evidence to dedicate that the citizens in WG town benefit form the EZ’s additional collection trash each week in deed. The common sense tells us that collecting trash once per week might suffice to dispose the whole town’s trash, just like ABC does. The author does not provide any evidence to manifest it is necessary to collect trash twice every week. Without the explicit and specific demand for the additional collection, we have good reason to deduce that the frequency of collection might make no sense to favor EZ continuously.   

Moreover, the author cites that the EZ has ordered additional trucks to substantiate the conclusion. However this information does not guarantee the service of EZ will be better than ABC. There is no evidence provided by the author to prove that the additional truck will be used in WG town. Even if EZ plans to use new trucks in WG town, there is no casual relationship between the number of truck and the level of service. Even though we concede the service of EZ will be improved if it has more trucks, nevertheless the author does not mention when EZ will receive the new trucks and put into use. If the date is late, that predominance of EZ over ABC will not exist and influence on the decision less.

Last but not least, the survey result provides little support to the author’s recommendation. The argument tells us little about the detailed produce of surveys. Whether the surveys are conducted by the authority in the field or not, how is the randomly sampling, and whether these respondents could represent the whole view of residents in WG town. Moreover, even if people are satisfied with EZ’s service generally, however it is also possible that they are more satisfied with ABC’s service. If the author cannot rule out the likelihood, it is hard or even impossible for us to convince that EZ is the better choice of citizens in WG town.  

In sum, based on what has discussed above, it is obvious that the author’s recommendation is misleading and ungrounded. In order to make it more convincing, the author should prove the additional collection is necessary and EZ is more popular than ABC among WG town and it will improve its service.