argument17【CSMY作文互改小组】第二次作业

lonixUID: 2202232

Argument17The 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."

提纲：
（1）    EZ一个星期收两个，而ＡＢＣ一个星期收一次也不足以说明我们应该继续用ＥＺ公司。
（2）    EZ订购更多的卡车就能说明EZ的垃圾回收服务一定会很好么？
（3）    调查也是有问题的：A.调查的人群是否就是那些EZ公司服务好的人群呢? B.80%的满意度并
      不能说明这些人对其他公司的满意度会比更差么，也许还要高呢。

Words : 559              date: 2007-1-1

In this letter the arguer concludes that the WG town should continue employing EZ rather than ABC to collect trash despite of the high charge of EZ required. To support this conclusion, the arguer cites the following facts about EZ: (1) EZ collects trash twice a week and ABC collect only once; (2) EZ possesses same amount of trucks as ABC and has ordered additional ones; (3) eighty percent of its people content with EZ’s performance. Close scrutiny of each of these facts, however, reveals that none of them lend credible support to the conclusion.

Firstly, the frequency for EZ to collect trash doesn’t necessarily indicate that the residents of WG town should still continue to use EZ. There is also no evidence indicating that WG town actually needs such a frequency that they can keep their communities clear and healthy. Perhaps most of WG’s residents have a high moral that renders them more aware the communities’ public health, and once trash collection a week would be enough. Furthermore, collecting twice a week cannot guarantee that the service provided by EZ is better than ABC. Perhaps the ten year’s employing relationship makes EZ more arbitrary to their work. Or perhaps the residents of WG town have little knowledge about ABC’s service. Without considering and ruling out such possibilities, the arguer would be hardly to convince us that WG town would not turn to ABC or other trash disposal company as the council recommends.
            

Secondly, the fact that EZ has ordered additional trucks accomplishes nothing towards providing evidence about which service is better choice for WG town. Perhaps EZ does not plan to use its new trucks for collecting WG’s trash. Even using these new trucks to collect trash, does this can convince us that they provide better services than ABC? Of course not, because there is no evidence indicating that such strategy actually betters EZ’s service and improve their efficiency. Besides, the arguer provides little information about when EZ will receive this fleet of trucks. The latter the delivery, the less significance of this factor should be in WG’s final decision.

Thirdly, 80% of its surveyed people contented with EZ’s performance cannot warrant that EZ would win the final combat. Unless the arguer provides abundant evidence about the survey and from the survey we actually know ABC’s service, we cannot conclude that EZ’s service is more preferable. Although we know that EZ’s service is better, it doesn’t mean that we should choose EZ. Perhaps the WG town, at this time, is on its economic crisis, which reduces dramatically the average income of its residents. They don’t have the capacity to offer such mount of money they paid as usual that the cheaper ABC must be the better choice in respect of its poor service. Besides, it is entirely possible that the surveyed residents are more satisfied with ABC’s service. Therefore, lacking reliable evidence of the effective of this survey it is difficulty to accept the conclusion that WG will continue using EZ.

In sum, to persuade me to believe the fact hat WG should continue using EZ’s service the arguer must provide more evidence that WG would benefit from an additional trash collection a week, and the use of additional trucks. To better evaluate the strength of the recommendation we would still need more detailed information about the survey.
   


[ 本帖最后由 lonix 于 2007-1-3 23:15 编辑 ]