Argument17 同舟共济小组作业（含提纲），求拍，先谢了

estimaterUID: 2158268

题目：应该选择哪个垃圾收集服务机构？
提纲：
1、市委改变选择可能有除价格之外的其他原因；
2、 调查准确性；
3、论据不完备。


TOPIC: 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."

The author of the letter recommends that Walnut Grove's town council should continue using EZ Disposal for trash collection services instead of using ABC Waste. To support the assertion the author points out that EZ collects trash twice a week, while ABC collects only once. Meanwhile, EZ has ordered additional trucks and 80 percent of respondents agreed to be satisfied with EZ's performance. The argument seems logical, but a close scrutiny of the evidence reveals several critical flaws which render it unconvincing.

To begin with, the author fails to rule out other relevant factors that may influence the council's choice. Besides the increased monthly fee, the EZ Disposal may have some other shortcomings to prevent the Walnut Grove's to continue the contrast. Perhaps EZ is inefficient in work and it is unnecessary to collect trash twice a week which delays the time of residents. Or perhaps the management of EZ is rough-and-tumble which lends to a serious problematic finance. Meanwhile, ABC may provide more efficiency services which contributes to its lower price. Then, it is wiser to choose ABC as the trash collection services provider.  

In further support of the recommendation, the letter cites the survey that 80 percent of respondents last year agreed that they were 'satisfied' with EZ's performance." However, the author provides no evidence to prove the reliability of the survey. Moreover, perhaps not all the citizens responded to the survey and the lower the proportion of respondents the less representative is the survey. Without evidence that the survey is accurate, the author can not convince me to accept the recommendation.

Finally, even if we accept the statistic reliability of the survey, it is not necessary to reach the conclusion. As the author fails to point out whether 80 percent is a high proportion or not, we can hardly compare the service of EZ with that of ABC which may receive a higher proportion of respondents who are satisfied with its performance. As a result, the author can not simply support the assertion that it is worthy to spend more money using EZ.

In conclusion, the argument suffers from several fallacies and is therefore unpersuasive. To better support the recommendation, the author has to provide more specific evidence to prove that the monthly fee is the only reason why Grove's town council tends to switch from EZ to ABC. Moreover, to better evaluate the argument, I need more information about the survey to make sure it is accurate. Then the argument has to be modified to make it more logical.

wjjtongjiUID: 2157695

题目：应该选择哪个垃圾收集服务机构？
提纲：
1、市委改变选择可能有除价格之外的其他原因；
2、 调查准确性；
3、论据不完备。


TOPIC: 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."

The author of the letter recommends that Walnut Grove's town council should continue using EZ Disposal for trash collection services instead of using ABC Waste. To support the assertion the author points out that EZ collects trash twice a week, while ABC collects only once. Meanwhile, EZ has ordered additional trucks and 80 percent of respondents agreed to be satisfied with EZ's performance. The argument seems logical, but a close scrutiny of the evidence（evidences） reveals several critical flaws which render it(them) unconvincing.

To begin with, the author fails to rule out other relevant factors that may influence the council's choice. Besides the increased monthly fee, the EZ Disposal may have some other shortcomings to prevent the Walnut Grove's to continue the contrast. (I’m afraid that the first two sentences have the same meaning and the conjunction “besides” serves not well. Maybe to combine the two sentences is better. Suggestion: use “, that is,” to connect them.) Perhaps EZ is inefficient in work and it is unnecessary to collect trash twice a week which delays the time of residents. (I’m afraid that the meaning of the former sentence is too vague and not definite. Suggestion: which brings in unnecessary inconveniences to residents.) Or perhaps the management of EZ is rough-and-tumble (the adjective means “rough unrestrained and fighting or struggling”, which is not appropriate to the idea that you want to express.) which lends (you mean “leads”?) to a serious problematic finance. Meanwhile, ABC may provide more efficiency (efficient) services which contributes (contribute) to its lower price. Then, it is wiser to choose ABC as the trash collection services provider. (It seems that you want to present two aspects, that is, from the perspective of the inside reason of the government and the essence disadvantages of the company’s service to prove the invalidity of the author’s reasoning. But you fail to mention even a word about the government. Suggestion: It is possible that the governor has close relationship with the company ABC, which leads to unfair and biased choice of doing so. Thus even though it is true that the EZ is a better server, if the justification given are substantiate, the governor will not adopt the recommendation suggested by the arguer. If it is in this situation, all the proofs and facts supporting the advantages of EZ will come into null and vain.)
In further support of the recommendation, the letter cites the survey that 80 percent of respondents last year agreed that they were 'satisfied' with EZ's performance." However, the author provides no evidence to prove the reliability of the survey. (No supporting evidence is given about the unreliability of the survey.) Moreover, perhaps not all the citizens responded to the survey and the lower the proportion of respondents (is,) the less representative is the survey. (It seems you misunderstand the reliability as the small size and the representation of a survey. The reliability means the honest of the respondents, that is, whether they have told truth, and the frankness from the testers—whether they have manifest the real result of the survey. You use the reasoning about size and representation of the survey to prove the inaccuracy of it, as you have stated in the following sentence.)Without evidence that the survey is accurate, the author can not convince me to accept the recommendation.

Finally, even if we accept the statistic reliability of the survey, it is not necessary  to reach the conclusion. As the author fails to point out whether 80 percent is a high proportion or not, we can hardly compare the service of EZ with that of ABC which may receive a higher proportion of respondents who are satisfied with its performance. As a result, the author can not simply support the assertion that it is worthy to spend more money using EZ.

In conclusion, the argument suffers from several fallacies and is therefore unpersuasive (I’m afraid that this word doesn’t exist.). To better support the recommendation, the author has to provide more specific evidence to prove that the monthly fee is the only reason why Grove's town council tends to switch from EZ to ABC. Moreover, to better evaluate the argument, I need more information about the survey to make sure it is accurate. Then the argument has to be modified to make it more logical.

A more compelling justification for you to consider: We don’t know whether the sender of the letter shares interest with the company of EZ, which leads to his total support to EZ. If it is in this case, the following reasoning is futile and recommendation is more subjective than objective.
What’s more, it’s a pity that you fail to analyze the evidence given by the author, which contains blunders in the line of reasoning about the frequency of the serving, the number of trucks and the additional services provided by EZ. It is valid to prove the groundlessness of the letter as you have stated above, but these are far less efficient and adequate. The number of your words is 423, which is not enough I’m afraid. Hope a more considerate scrutiny is given to your own composition before transmitting it to others to modify. Good luck!

estimaterUID: 2158268

多谢wjjtongji 好仔细啊

确实有太多缺点了

保证好好努力！！

快没时间了～～

把wjjtongji的修改收藏先