Argument17 【加州阳光】第三次作业 拍呀

yvonnewhuUID: 2202979

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."
WORDS: 547          TIME: 1:05:51          DATE: 2006-6-16

In the argument, the arguer recommends that the tow council should not switch from EZ Disposal to ABC Waste. To justify this claim, the arguer provides the evidence that EZ collects trash twice a week while ABC collects only once. In addition, he reasons that EZ currently has a fleet of 20 trucks while ABC ordered additional trucks. Moreover he cites the result of a survey which shows 80 percent of respondents agreed that they were 'satisfied' with EZ's performance. A careful examination of this argument would reveal how groundless the claim is.

In the first place, the arguer failed to provide enough evidence to demonstrate it is necessary for trash collection services to collects trash twice a week. In the argument, the arguer unfairly assumes that there are enough trash for trash collection services to collects twice a week. It is possibly that population in Walnut Grove town is small, which can only give a small amount of trash in each week. So, whether its necessary that the trash be disposed twice a week should be elaborated.

In the second place, the arguer ignores taking into account the truck efficiency of the two companies. Granted that EZ have more trucks collecting trash, however, the arguer does not demonstrate the efficiency of EZ's truck is equal to ABC's trucks'. Suppose the fleet of 20 trucks is small, which can only collect small amount of trash each time, we can agree on arguer's claim. If the ABC's truck drivers are very responsible to their work and the efficiency is high, we can either not reach the conclusion that EZ is better than ABC. Possibly, the fleet of 20 trucks only serves as a procession ceremony for higher EZ's charge.

In addition, the evidence of the survey provided in this argument is not sufficient to validate the assumption that residents in Walnut Grove town are more satisfied with ZE than ABC. The arguer recommends that their is a survey provided by EZ which demonstrate that 80 percent of respondents to last year's town survey agreed that they were 'satisfied' with EZ's performance. However, the survey only included part of residents who respond to the survey. How large of population is the survey? And what's the percentage of the respondents? If the respondents only consist of 20 percent of all the residents in Walnut Grove, the whole percentage of satisfaction is 16 percent. Moreover, the percentage of satisfaction with ABC is not given. It is likely that ABC's sati factionary ratio is larger than EZ's. In that case, it is surely a wise measure for the town council to have ABC Waste to keep the town cleaner, which is support by ABC's charge is less than EZ's.

In conclusion, the arguer's claim lacks credibility because the evidence cited in the analysis does not lend strong support to what the arguer maintains. To strengthen the argument, the arguer would have to provide more evidence concerning the trucks' efficiency and the percentage of respondents in the survey. In additon, he should also provide some information about ABC's survey. Besides that, the need for collecting trash should also be taken into account. Only when all these have been clearly considered, we can accept the idea of EZ's cost-efficiency ratio is better compared with ABC's.

sandyfriendUID: 157486

"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."
WORDS: 547          TIME: 1:05:51          DATE: 2006-6-16

In the argument, the arguer recommends that the tow council should not switch from EZ Disposal to ABC Waste. To justify this claim, the arguer provides the evidence that EZ collects trash twice a week while ABC collects only once. In addition, he reasons that EZ currently has a fleet of 20 trucks while ABC ordered additional trucks. Moreover he cites the result of a survey which shows 80 percent of respondents agreed that they were 'satisfied' with EZ's performance. A careful examination of this argument would reveal how groundless the claim is.
[EZ可以order additional trucks 把？]
In the first place, the arguer failed to provide enough evidence to demonstrate it is necessary for trash collection services to collects trash twice a week. In the argument, the arguer unfairly assumes that there are enough trash for trash collection services to collects twice a week. It is possibly that population in Walnut Grove town is small, which can only give a small amount of trash in each week. So, whether its necessary that the trash be disposed twice a week should be elaborated.

In the second place, the arguer ignores taking into account the truck efficiency of the two companies. Granted that EZ have more trucks collecting trash, however, the arguer does not demonstrate the efficiency of EZ's truck is equal to ABC's trucks'. Suppose the fleet of 20 trucks is small, which can only collect small amount of trash each time, we can agree on arguer's claim. If the ABC's truck drivers are very responsible to their work and the efficiency is high, we can either not reach the conclusion that EZ is better than ABC. Possibly, the fleet of 20 trucks only serves as a procession ceremony for higher EZ's charge.

In addition, the evidence of the survey provided in this argument is not sufficient to validate the assumption that residents in Walnut Grove town are more satisfied with ZE than ABC. The arguer recommends that their is a survey provided by EZ which demonstrate that 80 percent of respondents to last year's town survey agreed that they were 'satisfied' with EZ's performance. However, the survey only included part of residents who respond to the survey. How large of population is the survey? And what's the percentage of the respondents? If the respondents only consist of 20 percent of all the residents in Walnut Grove, the whole percentage of satisfaction is 16 percent Moreover, the percentage of satisfaction with ABC is not given. It is likely that ABC's sati factionary ratio is larger than EZ's. In that case, it is surely a wise measure for the town council to have ABC Waste to keep the town cleaner, which is support by ABC's charge is less than EZ's.
[只能说survey没有代表性，不能直接得出支持率把]
In conclusion, the arguer's claim lacks credibility because the evidence cited in the analysis does not [lend 用 give ]strong support to what the arguer maintains. To strengthen the argument, the arguer would have to provide more evidence concerning the trucks' efficiency and the percentage of respondents in the survey. In addition [addition], he should also provide some information about ABC's survey. Besides that, the need for collecting trash should also be taken into account. Only when all these have been clearly considered, we can accept the idea of EZ's cost-efficiency ratio is better compared with ABC's.
不错，已经没什么错了，论证也好。，good job