Argument17 【Persistence小组】第4次作业

iamstoicUID: 2294314

In this letter, the author concludes that Walnut Grove’s town council should continue using EZ Disposal for trash collection services rather than ABC Waste by making a comparison of the two companies as well as citing the result of last year’s survey. However, the argument in this letter, suffers from several critical fallacies.

Firstly, the fact that EZ collects trash twice a week while ABC only once does not necessarily make EZ the best trash collection service to choose. It is entirely possible, for instance, that the service of ABC is far more effective probably due to its better management and/or more advanced equipment than that of EZ. The author also overlooks the possibility that the residents in the Walnut Grove’s town prefer the trash collection trucks to take away all the disposals once a week, since the noises and exhausts released by the truck may aggravate the pollution in the town. Without ruling out such possibilities, the author cannot reasonably conclude that we should continue using EZ.  

Secondly, another problem with this argument is that it assumes that the more trucks the company have, the superior the service is. Yet this might not be the case, for if 20 trucks are sufficient to collect all the waste in this town, are the additional trucks left unused unless they serve for ,if any, other purposes?  

Thirdly, the author’s conclusion about EZ’s exceptional service depends on the assumption that the survey results are statistically reliable. Yet, in order to substantiate this assumption, he should show that the respondents surveyed constitute a sufficiently large sample of the town’s population, and that this sample is representative of the overall inhabitants in the Walnut Grove town. Without evidence of the survey’s reliability, it is impossible to draw any firm conclusions about the people’s satisfaction with EZ’s performance. Even if the author could substantiate the survey’s reliability, how could he disprove, if any, more than 80 percent of the respondents in the town are satisfied with ABC’s service in this year’ survey, rather than last year’s ?  

In addition, the author mentioned that EZ’s monthly fee has increased from $2000 to $2500, compared with ABC’s fee which is still $2000. If ABC Waste be just as exceptional-if not more so-for trash collection services, why should the Walnut Grove’s town council advocate a more expensive one? What is more, besides EZ and ABC, there may be other trash collection services, with the best service and the most decent price, to advocate.

Overall, the reasoning behind continuing to use EZ seems logical as presented above since the author are writing this letter in the interests of the town’s residents and want to satisfy their needs. However, before conclusions about selecting EZ are reached, a more complete understanding of all possible alternatives for the trash collection service are needed.

worenleflyUID: 2270315

In this letter, the author concludes that Walnut Grove’s town council should continue using EZ Disposal for trash collection services rather than ABC Waste by making a comparison of(with？) the two companies as well as citing the result of last year’s survey. However, the argument in this letter, suffers from several critical fallacies.

Firstly, the fact that EZ collects trash twice a week while ABC only once does not necessarily make EZ the best trash collection service to choose. It is entirely possible, for instance, that the service of ABC is far more effective probably due to its better management and/or more advanced equipment than that of EZ. The author also overlooks the possibility that the residents in the Walnut Grove’s town prefer the trash collection trucks to take away all the disposals once a week, since the noises and exhausts released by the truck may aggravate the pollution in the town. Without ruling out such possibilities, the author cannot reasonably conclude that we should continue using EZ.  

Secondly, another problem with this argument is that it assumes that the more trucks the company have, the superior the service is. Yet this might not be the case, for if 20 trucks are sufficient to collect all the waste in this town, are the additional trucks left unused unless they serve for ,if any, other purposes? (这句好啊，不足是这段只有两句话组成略显单薄，再加上一两句会不会好些呢？)

Thirdly, the author’s conclusion about EZ’s exceptional service depends on the assumption that the survey results are statistically reliable. Yet, in order to substantiate this assumption, he should show that the respondents surveyed constitute a sufficiently large sample of the town’s population, and that this sample is representative of the overall inhabitants in the Walnut Grove town. Without evidence of the survey’s reliability, it is impossible to draw any firm conclusions about the people’s satisfaction with EZ’s performance. Even if the author could substantiate the survey’s reliability, how could he disprove, if any, more than 80 percent of the respondents in the town are satisfied with ABC’s service in this year’ survey, rather than last year’s ?  

In addition, the author mentioned that EZ’s monthly fee has increased from $2000 to $2500, compared with ABC’s fee which is still $2000. If ABC Waste be just as exceptional-if not more so-for trash collection services, why should the Walnut Grove’s town council advocate a more expensive one? What is more, besides EZ and ABC, there may be other trash collection services, with the best service and the most decent price, to advocate.

Overall, the reasoning behind continuing to use(是不是应该using 呢？) EZ seems logical as presented above since the author are( is ?) writing this letter in the interests of the town’s residents and want(wants?) to satisfy their needs. However, before(the ?) conclusions about selecting EZ are reached, a more complete understanding of all possible alternatives for the trash collection service are needed.(结尾有些仓促了)
(文章很好，攻击点找的很是恰当。但是在攻击中，感觉用反问的模式很不错，可是用的好像多了，这样说理的力度略有下降。Fighting~~~)