Argument17 076GMyth小组第四次作业--Hermes

qhx17UID: 142079

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: 449         TIME: 上午 12:45:00          DATE: 2006-10-27

In this argument, the author recommends that the citizens in Walnut Grove town should continue using EZ Disposal to collect trash. To justify his assertion, the author points out the evidence of a comparison between the two trash collection company in some aspects. And also the author cites a survey to support the claim. However, close scrutiny of this evidence and the line of reasoning reveals that they provide little credible support for the author's conclusion.

A threshold problem with this argument is that the author commits a fallacy of causal oversimplification in assuming that the price increase is all that is required for switching disposal company in Walnut Grove town. While monthly fee raise is an important contributing factor to switching the disposal company in Walnut Grove town, it is hardly the only one. To establish a general causal relationship between the former and the latter, other factors that could bring about the same result must be considered and eliminated. For example, ABC Waste disposal the trash in a new way which is more economic and more effective in environmental protection than of EZ Disposal's. The author's failure to investigate or even consider the possible explanation for why they switching the disposal company renders the conclusion based upon it highly suspect.

Even assuming that monthly fee raise caused switching the disposal company, the author provides no evidence that it is reasonable for EZ Disposal to increase its fee from $2,000 to $2,500 each month. Although EZ collects trash twice a week, it is hardly indicate the amount of work EZ does is twice more than ABC does. It is entirely possible that ABC collects trash more effective than EZ does. Without ruling out whether it is valuable to increase monthly fee, it is unjustifiable to draw any conclusion whatsoever.

Finally, the survey cited by the author is described in the vaguest possible terms. The claim does not provide sufficient evidence that the number of respondents is statistically reliable or that the respondents were representative of the residents in Walnut Grove town in general. Lacking evidence about the randomness and size of the survey's sample, the director cannot make a convincing conclusion based upon that survey.

In sum, the argument is dubious is weak on several grounds. To bolster it , the author must provide clear evidence whether the increase of fee causes switching the disposal company. To better assess the argument, it would be useful to know that twice-a-week trash collection is worth in raising $500. Also useful would be any information concerning what exceptional service EZ supplied, the number of people surveyed, the number of people responded, and the reason why others did not respond the survey.

[ 本帖最后由 qhx17 于 2006-10-27 23:57 编辑 ]