Argument17 【Persistence小组】第4次作业

Andy85UID: 2250503

A17 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.”

论断： 继续让EZ收垃圾
前提： EZ的收费合理
论据：  1 EZ一周收两次垃圾，ABC只收一次
           2 EZ的车子要增加
           3 EZ的服务好，80％的人满意
1也许不是因为收费高才选ABC
2收垃圾次数多不代表服务好，镇上很干净，不需要
3车子多不意味着服务好
4调查是更改前做的，不能代表以后


The arguer's view that Walnut Grove's town should continue choose EZ Disposal seems to be convincing at the first glance, however, I'm afraid the argument is just well presented, but not well reasoned.

The arguer hold the view that it is unreasonable for the council to switch from EZ to ABC just because of its high price, however he
might fail to notice that there are many other reasons for this change. Perhaps the council is not content with the disposal method of
EZ which contaminates the environment and could be deleterious to the health to the public while the new method adopted by ABC
Waste would eliminate this pollution and generate power from the rubbish for the town which would again decrease the cost of
disposing waste.

It seems a considerable advantage for the arguer that EZ collects waste twice a week while ABC, only once. However, the arguer
does not tell us whether it is necessary for the town. There might not be so much rubbish to be collected in the town and once a
week was quite adequate.

The EZ Disposal is ordering more truck, which the arguer takes as a powerful reason that EZ will provide them with better service.
But he fails to see that the old trucks of EZ are likely to be out of service. And further, we cannot jump to the conclusion that the
more trucks the company has, the better service it can provide. The most important aspect we concern is the attitude of the workers when they are serving us.

And the result of the survey that 80% of the respondents were satisfied with EZ's performance is also very suspicious. Whether those
people will still be satisfied when the price of EZ has increased? Or when they are given the chance to make a comparison of the two
companies’ service, will they still in favor the former one?

Higher price does not mean high quality of service, so if we want to make a decision of which one to take, more information should
be offered, more comparison made, and more analysis conducted. There is no easy way.