Argument17 CSMY作文互改小组 第三组第二次作业

leonardowangUID: 2285975

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."

提纲：
1。作者认为TC要换EZ为ABC的原因是其价高，这一猜测是无根据的
2。即使如此，TC的提价未必是有理的
3。即使应该提价，也不表明其服务好过ABC

This author concludes that the town council is mistaken to use ABC Waste for trash collection. To justify his conclusion, the author cites the reasons that the service of EZ is better than ABC's; the increased price of EZ is reasonable and TC should not switch to other company by EZ's price. With some unproved assumptions and evidences, the conclusion suffers from several critical flaws.

Firstly, there is no evidence for the author to make the assumption that town council advocates to changing trash collection Company because of its high price. It is entirely possible that ABC Waste Company has other advantages over EZ. For example, ABC Waste probably has adopted new techniques and management method to reduce the cost. Moreover, town council want to turn to ABC Waste is because EZ have made large amount of environmental pollution during their operation of trash.

Secondly, the author also fails to justify that the increase of price of EZ is reasonable, even though we take it for granted that the reason why town council want to change the trash collection company. We notices that town council have make EZ as trash collection company for ten years, and there is no obvious reason in this argument which convinces us the increase price is reasonable. Since there is no change of their service mentioned and other factor which may cause the change of price is cited.

Thirdly, if the increase of price is reasonable, the evidences author cited are not sufficient to support that the service of EZ is better than ABC Waste. It is entirely possible that this town does not have so much trash to collection that it would even be enough to collect once a month, which can significantly reduce the price of collection. As to the trucks, it is not a sign of EZ's power. Maybe those cars are not used for trash collection or in bad condition. And there are also some defects of the survey. The argument does not mention how many respondents of the survey and the representativeness of all people in town.

In conclusion, the conclusion of this argument stands on some oversimplified evidence and groundless assumptions. To justify his conclusion, the author should make a more careful survey not only on the feedback of EZ but also the specific requirements of trash collection.