argument11 gter无名小组expire7

expire7UID: 2160574

TOPIC：ARGUMENT 11 - The following appeared in a memo from the mayor of the town of West Egg.

"Two years ago, our consultants predicted that West Egg's landfill, which is used for garbage disposal, would be completely filled within five years. During the past two years, however, town residents have been recycling twice as much aluminum and paper as they did in previous years. Next month the amount of material recycled should further increase, since charges for garbage pickup will double. Furthermore, over ninety percent of the respondents to a recent survey said that they would do more recycling in the future. Because of our residents' strong commitment to recycling, the available space in our landfill should last for considerably longer than predicted."
WORDS：499          TIME：上午 12:29:51          DATE：2006-3-24

In this argument, the author's conclusion is that the landfill in West Egg will be not filled in people's predicated time. To support this claim, the author cites the fact that aluminum and paper recycling keep on increasing in the past two years. Meanwhile, the author assumes that the amount of material recycled would be increase because garbage pickup charges would double next month. Then, a recent survey shows that over 90% percent people would do more recycling in the future. The argument suffers from a series of logical flaw, however, which renders it wholly unpersuasive as it stands.

First and foremost, the fact that town residents have been recycling twice aluminum and paper than in previous years can not indicate that the amount of whole garbage is decreasing. For one thing, the author omits the population may increase even doubled in recent years. If so, even if many people will recycle garbage, the amount of garbage will inevitably increase. For another, since the author solely provides the information that people have been recycling twice in aluminum and paper, other kinds of material recycling may dramatically reduce, even no one would recycle them. Any of those scenarios, if true, would serve to undermine the conclusion of the author rather than support it.

Secondly, the author unfairly assumes that people will do more recycling in next month only depending on the evidence that charges for garbage pickup will double. Perhaps charges generally keep on a low level in contrast to town residents earnings. Therefore, it is entirely possible that people do not pay more attention to the increasing charge. Or perhaps although doubling charges for garbage pickup will influence people in town, they may have not enough time to do more recycling in the future. Without ruling out those possibilities, the author can not justifiably substantiate his claim that the available space in landfill will be used longer.

Thirdly, the author sweeping concludes that the landfill will last longer than predicted hinging on the assumption that the recent survey is statistically reliable. Yet, the author omits providing the concrete information about the survey. It is likely that those respondents can not represent whole people in West Egg because of the insufficient sample, which makes survey irrational and unsound. On the other hand, even we accept that the survey is valid and sound, those respondents may not do as their promises. Common sense tells that people may not always keep and stick on their promise. Lacking evidence to eliminate those assumptions, the author's conclusion is dubious.


To sum up, the argument lacks credibility because cited evidence in this analysis can not lend significant support to what the author maintains. To make it logically acceptable, the author would have to demonstrate detailed evidence that the amount of garbage will reduce resulting from people's recycling and the recent survey is reliable and worthwhile. Furthermore, the author should give more information to ensure the respondents in survey will keep their promise in the future.