argument17【自由女神小组第十四次作业】

huzhUID: 2268429

argument17【自由女神小组第十四次作业】


In this argument, the arguer concludes that Walnut Grove (WG)’s advocated switching from WZ Disposal to ABC Waste. To support the conclusion, the arguer provides the evidence that EZ raised its fee a month and EZ collects trash twice a weed. In addition, EZ will order additional trucks. Finally, the arguer cites a recent survey that 80 percent of respondents were ‘satisfied’ with EZ’s performance. The argument suffers from several critical fallacies.

First, the major problem with the argument is not only the times they collect trash determine the service, but also other factors like the technique determine the service. As we known, the high technology will lead high effective. It is likely that the ABC’s high technique need to collect trash once week. Yet the arguer provides no evidence that this is in the case.

Secondly, the arguer fails to provide evidence that the EZ order more truck will lead better service than ABC’s and it is the better choice for the government. Even if the more truck will lead better service, and the arguer did not provide enough detail about the ABC’s order. It is likely that the ABC will order more trucks than EZ’s. The scant evidence can not conclude the conclusion.

Finally, the sample of survey conducted by the 80 percent of responds were ‘satisfied’ with the EZ’s performance, we are told nothing about the way the survey was conducted and how well it represented the public opinions. How many people participated? And are the respondents selective? Even if that people is generally satisfy the EZ is possible that they would be even more satisfied with the ABC’s service.

AS it stands, the argument is not well reasoned. To strength it, the arguer must provide more information about the other factors determine the service and use additional trucks will improve the service of the WG. To better evaluate the argument, we would need more information about the respondents and the way of the survey conducted.