Argument17 【CSMY作文互改小组】第二次作业 对不起，迟到了

siyuandingUID: 2154137

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 EZ每周收两次垃圾不代表收集的垃圾比ABC多
       2 EZ订购了更多的trucks不代表能真正拿到手，EZ现有的trucks未必全用于WG的垃圾收集
       3 调查不具代表性，不够充分

In this argument, the arguer recommends that Walnut Grove's town (WG) should continue using EZ. To justify this claim, the arguer provides the evidence that EB collects trash twice a week and has ordered additional trucks. In addition, he cites the result of last year's survey that 80 percent of respondents admit that they were satisfied with EZ's service. This line of reasoning is flawed in several aspects.

First of all, the mere fact that EZ collects trash twice a week while ABC collects only once does not necessarily imply that EZ collects more trash than ABC does. There is also the possibility that the amount of trash collected by ABC a time is three or four times of that EZ did. Without considering and ruling out the total amount of trash collected each year, the arguer cannot convince me that WG should employ EZ rather than ABC.

Secondly, the fact that EZ has ordered more trucks provides no direct information to which service would be better between EZ and ABC. No evidence indicates that EZ will receive its new trucks. Perhaps EZ has only ordered 2 or 3 second-hand trucks just because of the low price whose collection adds little to the total amount. Or perhaps EZ does not use its entire current fleet for collecting WG's trash where ABC does. Comprehensive analysis is necessary to identify the actual usage of the fleet in either company.

Thirdly, the arguer provides no evidence that the survey's respondents are representative of the over group of people in WG. Lacking such evidence, it is entirely possible that people concerned with the town's environment were more willing to respond to the survey than other people. Or perhaps EZ's service in the respondents' communities is unusually gratifying. In short, without better evidence that the survey is statistically reliable the arguer cannot rely on it to draw any firm conclusion about performance of EZ.

In conclusion, the arguer's claim is unpersuasive. To strengthen it more convincing evidence is needed that WG would benefit from an additional trash collection each week, and that the use of additional trucks would improve service to WG. Rather than relying solely on questionable satisfaction survey, the arguer should provide direct evidence that EZ definitely did very well.

参考资料
0606G同主题写作第十七期——Argument17

[ 本帖最后由 siyuanding 于 2007-1-6 19:43 编辑 ]