[a习作temp] argument17 【Cracking GRE】第五次作业恳请拍砖留链必复 [复制链接]

ashee
UID: 2237370

寄托新兵

Rank: 2

声望: 0
寄托币: 504
注册时间: 2006-8-2
精华: 0
帖子: 2

电梯直达

楼主

发表于 2007-2-6 20:34:35 |只看该作者 |倒序浏览

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." Based on some facts concerning the performance of both EZ and ABC’ trash collection in Walnut Grove and results of a recent survey, the arguer claims that the town council should continue to choose EZ Disposal for trash collection service. However, close scrutiny to the evidence given above will render this argument unconvincing as it stands.

A threshold problem of this argument involves the times of services per week provided by each company. The arguer assume that EZ Disposal, which provided an extra collection each week, should be favored. However the arguer fails to provide sufficient evidence that the town certainly benefit from this extra trash collection. It is entirely possible that ABC’s one collection each week would suffice to dispose the trash in Walnut Grove(WG) whereas EZ has to do one more collection to dispose the trash in WG, which means EZ’s collection is not as efficient as ABC’s. If so, then there would be unnecessary for the town to choose EZ and spend more fund on a costly extra disposal.

Another fact that weaken the argument involves EZ’s newly ordered trucks. The arguer believe that the 20 more trucks will help EZ to further improve its quality of service, which is unwarranted. Lacking the information about how EZ will make use of these trucks, It is highly possible that EZ does not plan to use these ordered trucks to improve its performance in WG, but to use these trucks to serve the collection in another town. Besides, the author does not rule out the possibility that if ABC’s trucks are more advanced than EZ’s, then ABC’s collection could be more in effect with the vehicles it currently owns.

Additionally, the mere fact that most respondents of the recent survey showed satisfaction towards EZ’s service is unpersuasive because the argument does not indicate how was the survey carried on and whether the respondents could be representative of the overall population’s opinion. What is more, Even if the survey is reliable, the argument does not substantiate that those who approve of EZ’s service would not be more approval of ABC’s service.

In sum, the claim, while seems logical at the first sight, has several flaws as analyzed above. Before any decision are made about the selection, a more consummate and thorough comparison of the benefit and cost of the two services is needed, and a survey fully reflect the general opinion of the residents must be executed.