argument17 hugo010311--hamming小组

hugo010311UID: 2237388

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: 441          TIME: 0:30:00          DATE: 2007-1-29
Outline:
1.       Times does not mean quality.
2.       Addition trucks does not mean more efficient
3.       Survey
The editor suggests that the Walnut Grove's town should continue to use EZ disposal for trash collecting, rather than switching to ABC Waste. To support this recommendation, the author cites the fact that EZ collets trash twice a week, and it has ordered more trucks than ABC waste. In addition, the author sites last year's town survey that 80 percent of respondents agreed that they were satisfied with EZ's performance. However, careful scruting of the argument reveals various logical and statistical problems, which render it unconvincing.

   First of all, the author fails to convince us that Walnut Grove will benefit from EZ's additional collection each week. Common sense tells us that it is entirely possible that ABC collects trash more effectively than EZ, which though conducts a more trash collection in a week. If so, then on the bias of frequency of collection it would make no sense that the Walnut Grove's town should continue to use EZ disposal for trash collecting.
   
   Secondly, the author fails to establish the causal relationship between the number of truck that EZ ordered and the quality of their service. It is true that EZ has ordered more trucks than ABC, the author fails to provide clear assurances that whether EZ has received entire trucks or when will receive them. Moreover, even assuming that EZ have more trucks than ABC now,   that if all of them are put into use is open to doubt. Perhaps EZ does not its entire trucks for its current trash collecting, whereas ABC would. For that matter, that author recommend Walnut Grove's town to choose EZ is unwarranted.

   Thirdly, the author provides no evidence that the survey's respondents are representative of entire people in Walnut Grove's town. Lacking such evidence, it is entirely possible that people who in favor of EZ were more willing to response to the survey than other people were. In short, without better evidence, that the survey is statistical reliable the author cannot rely on it to draw any firm conclusion that it is better for Walnut Grove's town to use EZ.

   To sum up, the argument relies on several pool assumptions and is therefore unconvincing as it stands. To strengthen the recommendation the author must provide clear evidence that the quality and effect of EZ Disposal is attribute to the frequency of its trash collecting in a week and the number of the trucks they order for collecting. And the author must also show the represenbility and the sample base number of the survey. If the evidence all above could not be showed, the suggestion that EZ disposal should be continuing be used would be unwarranted.

graduate06UID: 2223299

昨天在总结，没有改，sorry,晚上回来给你改！:)
正在改中....

[ 本帖最后由 graduate06 于 2007-1-30 23:43 编辑 ]

graduate06UID: 2223299

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: 441          TIME: 0:30:00          DATE: 2007-1-29 Outline: 1.       Times does not mean quality. 2.       Addition trucks does not mean more efficient 3.       Survey The editor suggests that the Walnut Grove's town should continue to use EZ disposal for trash collecting, rather than switching to ABC Waste. To support this recommendation, the author cites the fact that EZ collets trash twice a week, and it has ordered more trucks than ABC waste. In addition, the author sites last year's town survey that 80 percent of respondents agreed that they were satisfied with EZ's performance. However, careful scruting of the argument reveals various logical and statistical problems, which render it unconvincing.    First of all, the author fails to convince us that Walnut Grove will benefit from EZ's additional collection each week. Common sense tells us that it is entirely possible that ABC collects trash more effectively than EZ, which though conducts a more trash collection in a week. If so, then on the bias of frequency of collection it would make no sense that the Walnut Grove's town should continue to use EZ disposal for trash collecting.   Common sense tells us that 上XDF的时候老师点明了不要用这句。    Secondly, the author fails to establish the causal relationship between the number of truck that EZ ordered and the quality of their service. It is true that EZ has ordered more trucks than ABC, the author fails to provide clear assurances that whether EZ has received entire trucks or when will receive them. Moreover, even assuming that EZ have more trucks than ABC now,   that if all of them are put into use is open to doubt. Perhaps EZ does not its entire trucks for its current trash collecting, whereas ABC would. For that matter, that author recommend Walnut Grove's town to choose EZ is unwarranted.    Thirdly, the author provides no evidence that the survey's respondents are representative of entire people in Walnut Grove's town. Lacking such evidence, it is entirely possible that people who in favor of EZ were more willing to response to the survey than other people were. In short, without better evidence, that the survey is statistical reliable the author cannot rely on it to draw any firm conclusion that it is better for Walnut Grove's town to use EZ.    To sum up, the argument relies on several pool assumptions and is therefore unconvincing as it stands. To strengthen the recommendation the author must provide clear evidence that the quality and effect of EZ Disposal is attribute to the frequency of its trash collecting in a week and the number of the trucks they order for collecting. And the author must also show the represenbility and the sample base number of the survey. If the evidence all above could not be showed, the suggestion that EZ disposal should be continuing be used would be unwarranted. 攻击的错误都很明确，没有问题！！ 但最关键一点：没有critical thinking ，看一下帖子，咱们都要调整一下。

多多加油！！！
看看这个：
Argument部分请自行参考3篇重要文献：

https://bbs.gter.net/showthread.php?s=&threadid=134092

https://bbs.gter.net/showthread.php?s=&threadid=175162

https://bbs.gter.net/showthread.php?s=&threadid=199905

这是关于critical thinking 的问题，可要注意了！！！