Argument17 [米国有米小组aefiter第一次作业]欢迎指教！

aefiterUID: 2134740

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: 433          TIME: 0:29:35          DATE: 2006-11-14

In this argument, the arguer suggests we should continue using EZ Disposal as our trash collection agency. To substantiate this argument, the arguer makes a brief comparison between EZ and ABC, and refers to a high percentage of satisfaction of a survey to respondents of EZ users. However, this argument suffers from several logic flaws that render it unconvincing.

To begin with, the evidence provided in the first place, that EZ collects trash with a higher frequency than ABC does, does not support the arguer's claim. EZ may entirely possible to be unable to finish the trash collection in one time within one week because of the deficiency of equipment. However, ABC's arrangement to collect trash once a week may cater to the desire of most of residents living in Walnut Grove. This arrangement is completely based on a careful survey to this community. If this assumption is true, we feel no difficulty to say the Walnut Grove's town should switch the trash agency to ABC Company.

Another flaw in this argument lies in the claim of the arguer that EZ has purchased more trucks. While the arguer may presume EZ to great enhance their services after this big order, it fails to rule out other possibility of the use of these additional trucks. Perhaps these trucks are going to serve in other services located outside this town. Another possibility, which equally undermine arguer's conclusion is that EZ suffers from a great loss of their trucks by accidents, which means even after this order, EZ may still unable to resume to the previous level of service, not to mention the ability to be compared with ABC.

Thirdly, the arguer provides quite obscure and misleading information of the survey. At first glance, the percentage of satisfaction is really compelling to most readers. But a second thought reveals some problem. Why should the left 20 percent of respondents dissatisfy the services of EZ? May be the ABC has a much higher level of satisfaction rate than that of EZ company. Each of these possible circumstances will undermine this argument.

At the final analysis, this argument fails to convince us the arguer's proposal. To make this argument a much stronger one, the arguer should make a comprehensive comparison between EZ and ABC, both in the mentioned aspects and beyond. Moreover, the arguer should explain the reason why EZ ordered additional trucks rather than simply provide only the truth. Finally, the arguer should provide the reason of EZ to raise the monthly fee and make clear to us that this raise is reasonable to its users.