Argument17 【LOVEAW小组】第2次作业

katrinajjUID: 2242021

Argument 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."


In the letter, the author recommends that Walnut Grove's town council should not use ABC Waste in place of EZ Disposal which has served in Walnut Grove's town for ten years. The author emphasizes that even though EZ raised its monthly fee $500 more than ABC, EZ collects trash one more time than ABC every week. The author also points out that EZ has ordered additional trucks, though now it has the same number of trucks as ABC has. To strengthen the recommendation, the author provides a survey to show that residents in Walnut Grove satisfy with the EZ's performance. As it stands, the recommendation is unconvincing foe several critical flaws.

In the first place, the author's recommendation is based on the assumption that collecting trash twice a week is necessary for the Walnut Grove's town. The author thinks it is better to choose EZ for the reason that it collects trash one more time a week than ABC.  However, the author fails to offer any evidence to substantiate this crucial assumption. It is highly possible that one collection per week suffices to deal with all trash in the town. If so, two collections is just a waste of time and labor resource. Moreover, residents in the town not only can not benefit from the additional collection, but also must pay an excess fee of $500 per month. Accordingly, the author can not draw any firem conclusion that Walnut Grove's town council should choose EZ.

Further, the author commits a fallacy of hasty generalization by providing a piece of information that EZ has ordered some more trucks even if the two companies have the same number of trucks for the moment. Despite that EZ has ordered some new trucks, it does not follow that the new trucks will put into use soon and whether the additional trucks is used to collect trash or not is also unknown.  Even assuming that EZ has more trucks, we can not judge that the capability of EZ's trucks is larger than ABC's. Unless it can show that the whole capabilities of EZ' trucks will be truly larger than ABC, any conclusion the author drawn is completely unwarranted.

Finally, the author provides no assurance that the survey on which the argument depends is statistically. Lacking information about who conducted the survey and the number of respondents,  it is impossible to assess the validity of the results. The author overlooks the possibility that only a small portion of residents in Walnut Grove responds to the survey. Another problem is that there is no evidence to show that the survey's respondents are representative of overall residents in Walnut Grove. Lacking such evidence, it is entirely possible that people preferring EZ were more willing to respond to the survey than other people were. In short, without ruling out all these possibilities, the author can not persuade us to choose EZ.

On the whole, this recommendation is not persuasive as it stands. To bolster the recommendation the author must provide better evidence that the amount of trash requires two collections per week and the total capability of EZ's trucks is larger than ABC's. To better evaluate the recommendation, I would need more information about the validity of the survey.

ILOVEISSUEUID: 2300195

In the letter, the author recommends that Walnut Grove's town council should not use ABC Waste in place of EZ Disposal which has served in Walnut Grove's town for ten years. The author emphasizes that even though EZ raised its monthly fee $500 more than ABC, EZ collects trash one more time than ABC every week. The author also points out that EZ has ordered additional trucks, though now it has the same number of trucks as ABC has. To strengthen the recommendation, the author provides a survey to show that residents in Walnut Grove satisfy with the EZ's performance. As it stands, the recommendation is unconvincing foe several critical flaws.

In the first place, the author's recommendation is based on the assumption that collecting trash twice a week is necessary for the Walnut Grove's town. The author thinks it is better to choose EZ for the reason that it collects trash one more time a week than ABC.  However, the author fails to offer any evidence to substantiate this crucial assumption. It is highly possible that one collection per week suffices to deal with all trash in the town. If so, two collections is just a waste of time and labor resource. Moreover, residents in the town not only can not benefit from the additional collection, but also must pay an excess fee of $500 per month. Accordingly, the author can not draw any firem firmconclusion that Walnut Grove's town council should choose EZ.

Further, the author commits a fallacy of hasty generalization by providing a piece of information that EZ has ordered some more trucks even if the two companies have the same number of trucks for the moment. Despite that EZ has ordered some new trucks, it does not follow that the new trucks will put into use soon and whether the additional trucks is used to collect trash or not is also unknown.  Even assuming that EZ has more trucks, we can not judge that the capability of EZ's trucks is larger than ABC's. Unless it can show that the whole capabilities of EZ' trucks will be truly larger than ABC, any conclusion the author drawn is completely unwarranted.

Finally, the author provides no assurance that the survey on which the argument depends is statistically. Lacking information about who conducted the survey and the number of respondents,  it is impossible to assess the validity of the results. The author overlooks the possibility that only a small portion of residents in Walnut Grove responds to the survey. Another problem is that there is no evidence to show that the survey's respondents are representative of overall residents in Walnut Grove. Lacking such evidence, it is entirely possible that people preferring EZ were more willing to respond to the survey than other people were. In short, without ruling out all these possibilities, the author can not persuade us to choose EZ.

On the whole, this recommendation is not persuasive as it stands. To bolster the recommendation the author must provide better evidence that the amount of trash requires two collections per week and the total capability of EZ's trucks is larger than ABC's. To better evaluate the recommendation, I would need more information about the validity of the survey.

语言方面，我找不到什么漏洞。
每段分析得很清楚， 但总体上段与段之逻辑结构不太紧密。尤其是倒数第二一段才谈survey不妥。我觉得可以将第三段和第四段换一下