Argument17 【四海一家】第二次作业 求块大点的砖！

vincentshinUID: 2246176

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: 474          TIME: 0:29:52          DATE: 2007-2-4

The argument above presents a relatively sound case for arguing that Walnut Grove's (WG) town council should reconsider its decision and continue using EZ. The letter also provides a variety of evidence to support this claim. It seems somehow plausible at first glance, however, further reflection and further consideration will reveal that it suffers from a host of logical fallacies and therefore is unconvincing.
   
The threshold assumption with this letter is that ABC's service is not effective and efficient as WG's. However, there is no guarantee of this. The letter provides no accurate information about the overall conditions of ABC relative to EZ. Lacking such critical information, no firm conclusion could be drawn from this letter.
   
Another unfair assumption with this letter has to do with the justification of high fees charged by EZ on collecting trash, on which the letter relies to reach the final recommendation. This letter also offers three compelling evidence to substantiate this idea. However, this evidence lends little help to the ultimate conclusion, due to the discussion noted below:
   
In the first place, the letter assumes that the times of trash pickup is directly proportional to the efficiency and effectiveness of one disposal firm. However, this is not necessarily the case. Though EZ collects trash twice a week while ABC just collects once, it is entirely possible that ABC is so experienced in the trash pickup that it needs only collect once a week. This proof, in turn, could lend great support to the claim that ABC is more efficient than EZ, for there is actually no need of collecting twice a week.
   
In the second place, this letter also indicates that EZ currently has the same number of trackers and will have more for it has ordered additional trackers, thus being better for this case. However, we are told nothing about when and how these ordered trucks would be put into use, rendering this evidence insufficient to arrive at a safe conclusion. The later the trucks arrive, the less useful this evidence is. Besides, it is entirely possible that this fleet of trucks would be used to other areas other than WG.
   
In the third place, the letter cites a survey to further its recommendation. However, this evidence is still unwarranted. Putting aside the statistical representativeness and randomness of the sample, these respondents inclined to satisfy with EZ's performance are more willing to answer this type of surveys. Moreover, perhaps after these respondents use ABC, they would prefer ABC rather than EZ due to the sharp contrast. Absent this key evidence about the comparative conditions between EZ and ABC, the final conclusion remains dubious at best.
   
Due to the above- mentioned analysis, this argument is unpersuasive as it stands. To better bolster its idea, further investigation and more consideration should be taken before the final decision and ultimate action.

请多多指教。十分感激。感谢建新的悉心修改！特此致意！

[ 本帖最后由 vincentshin 于 2007-2-8 14:37 编辑 ]

dream191919UID: 2245981

The argument above presents a relatively sound case for arguing that Walnut Grove's (WG) town council should reconsider its decision and continue using EZ. The letter also provides a variety of evidence to support this claim. It seems some how(somehow) plausible at first glance, however, further reflection and further consideration will reveal that it suffers from a host of logical fallacies and therefore is unconvincing.
    The threshold assumption with this letter is that ABC's service is not effective and efficient as WG's. However, there is no guarantee of this. The letter provides no accurate information about the overall conditions of ABC relative to EZ. Lacking such critical information, no firm conclusion could be drawn from this letter.[最好具体说明一下，可列举一些他因]
    Another unfair assumption with (in) this letter has to do with the justification of high fees charged by EZ on collecting trash, on which the letter relies to reach the final recommendation. This letter also offers three compelling evidence to substantiate this idea. However, this evidence lends little help to the ultimate conclusion, due to the discussion noted below:
    In the first place, the letter assumes that the number(times) of trash pickup is directly proportional to the efficiency and effectiveness of one disposal firm. However, this is not necessarily the case. Though EZ collects trash twice a week while ABC just collects once, it is entirely possible that ABC is so experienced in the trash pickup that it needs only collect once a week. This proof, in turn, could lend great support to the claim that ABC is more efficient than EZ, for there is actually no need of collecting twice a week.
    In the second place, this letter also indicates that EZ currently has the same number of trackers and will have more for it has ordered additional trackers, thus being better for this case. However, we are told nothing about when and how these ordered trucks would be put into use, [好观点]rendering this evidence insufficient to arrive at a safe conclusion. The later the trucks arrive, the less useful this evidence is. Besides, it is entirely possible that this fleet of trucks would be used to other areas other than WG.
    In the third place, the letter cites a survey to further its recommendation. However, this evidence is still unwarranted. Putting aside the statistical representativeness (representative)and randomness of the sample, these respondents inclined to satisfy with EZ's performance are more willing to answer this type of surveys.[新东方课没白上] Moreover, perhaps after these respondents use ABC, they would prefer ABC rather than EZ due to the sharp contrast. Absent this key evidence about the comparative conditions between EZ and ABC, the final conclusion remains dubious at best.(last)
    Due to the above- mentioned analysis, this argument is unpersuasive as it stands. To better bolster its idea, further investigation and more consideration should be taken before the final decision and ultimate action.

[总体写得不错，文中的问题差不多都找出来了，其中有好多经典的套句，可圈可点，如果多列举一下假设的情况就会给人感觉考虑得更周到]