argument17 [背水一战]小组—阿狗NO.2，累趴了。

lourryUID: 2157624

17.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：
Logical flaws1：To begin with, it is totally unfair to assume that ABC is unable to offer the same satisfied service as EZ Disposal   
Logical flaws2：Additionally, what the arguer alleges, EZ collects trash twice a week, while ABC collects only once, does not suffice for persuading us
Logical flaws3：the arguer unreasonably assumes that the ordered 20 trucks will guarantee or better the quality of service offered by EA
Logical flaws4：the survey that 80 percent of respondents satisfy with EZ’s last year performance is totally unsound
********************************************************************************************************************************

To conclude that Grove’s town should continue using EZ Disposal for the assumption that EZ offers better service than ABC, the arguer should provide more evidences to bolster the statement, but he fails to consider other angles which may make an impact on the quality of service and draws a conclusion curtly.

To begin with, it is totally unfair to assume that ABC is unable to offer the same satisfied service as EZ Disposal while there are no sufficient evidences to certify the assumption. Except for mention that ABC collects trash once a week, there is no further detailed information, such as credit and technology and so forth, concerning the service of ABC. While EZ has had the contract for trash collection services in Walnut Grove for the past ten years, the citizens of the town are likely to be unfamiliar with the service provided by ABC. Therefore, the arguer has no sound reasons to resist the citizens of Walnut Grove to try ABC which charges less.

Additionally, what the arguer alleges, EZ collects trash twice a week, while ABC collects only once, does not suffice for persuading us. First, is it possible that collecting trash once a week suffices the citizens of Walnut Grove? Or is it necessary to collect trash twice a week? Such information is not referred to in the letter. As a consequence, we can not exclude the possibility that it is completely unwanted to deal with the garbage twice a week, which charges the citizens for another 25% expense but totally unworthy or a waste for them. Second, the arguer unreasonably assumes that the ordered 20 trucks will guarantee or better the quality of service offered by EA, while the two matters have no apparent causality. On the one hand, because the letter does not imply that the new trucks on order are surely arranged to serve Walnut Grove, we have enough reasons to doubt whether they are used to offer service to Walnut Grove or serve for another town in which EA extends its business. On the other hand, maybe there are enough or even more than sufficient existing trucks and then the additional order means nothing but waste. Last but may not be lest, the survey that 80 percent of respondents satisfy with EZ’s last year performance is totally unsound. While being an accurate survey, more exact data should be contained. However, the survey above us gives us nothing about the respondents’ information and the authority of the survey so that it can hardly convince of us. Perhaps only those who suffice for the performance of EZ participant in the survey. Or perhaps, the survey is hold by a single person, but not an insider, who can ensure that the man operate the survey by normal rogatory procedure. Thus, the survey may mot actually reflect the fact. Even though the survey is reliable, the citizens still may be reluctant to afford the additional expense.

To sum up, it is unreasonable and unfair for the arguer to require Walnut Grove’s town council to accept the more expensive trash collection. In order to persuade citizens of the town, more other angles should be reflected roundly, but obviously the arguer fails to do so.

[ 本帖最后由 lourry 于 2007-2-5 23:35 编辑 ]