Argument17【0706G－CRUSADE小组】第3次作业 by vanlucker

vanluckerUID：2267009

      
题目：
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."

翻译：
Walnut Grove的市委提议选择ABC Waste，而不是EZ Disposal（它是过去十年中和Walnut Grove签约提供垃圾收集服务的机构），因为EZ最近把他们每月的收费从$2000提高到了$2500，而ABC仍然是$2000。但市委是错误的，我们应该继续使用EZ。EZ每周收集两次垃圾，而ABC只收集一次。而且，EZ当前的卡车拥有量和ABC一样都是20辆，但它已定购了更多的车辆。最后，EZ还提供优越的服务：去年市镇调查中80%的回应者同意他们对于EZ的表现是“满意”的。

1.        EZ提价不一定合理,可能是因为EZ经营不善导致亏损需要提价来提高收入也可能是认为他们缺少竞争对手
2.       就算EZ提价是合理的,但是没证据说明多出的500美元每月取得更好效果,可能花费与取得的效果不成正比(a, b点):a. WG是否需要每周2次回收垃圾:1次可能就足够了;b. WG是否需要超过20辆卡车:WG可能20辆或者更少就足够了;c. 可能ABC其他方面优势没提到:卡车装的多而每周只要1次或者回收技术更先进
3.       去年的调查不能完全说明EZ provides exceptional service: 调查回应者人数(可能只代表部分市民)以及调查选项(同意和不同意,市民可能觉得做的不坏就选满意)
4.       就算调查是可靠的,但是不说明ABC做的会比EZ差,甚至更令市民满意,而且或许市政由于要投入其他更重要的项目导致资金短缺而选择便宜的ABC,同时减轻纳税人的负担.
5.        总之,这个argument没证据说明EZ更好,所以他还应该调查EZ提价的原因,以及ABC的优势,同时评估本市情况EZ和ABC哪个更适合,而且应该提供更多调查的信息.


第一次限时失败,同时导致本文惨不忍睹,大家狠拍吧



       In this recommendation the arguer concluded that the town council should continue contrast with EZ. This recommendation is based on the observation of the two advantages of EZ. Moreover, the arguer cited a recent survey. The recommendation suffers from several critical fallacies.
       First, there is no evidence show that the recently raise of EZ’s monthly fee is reasonable. It is entirely possible that the raise has nothing to do with EZ’s advantages. The arguer does not provide any assurance that whether EZ has provided same service to WG before the raise. Therefore, perhaps this raise due to lacking competitor to compete with EZ in Walnut Grove(WG). Or perhaps EZ’s bad management which cause a great deficit need to be balanced by the raise of its fee.
       Secondly, even if EZ’s monthly fee raised reasonably, the arguer fail to provide evidences that EZ’s fee is proportionate to the effectiveness of its service. Although EZ provide twice a week trash collection, it is possible that WG merely need once a week or even less and ABC can provide more suitable service over EZ. Meanwhile, the arguer shows that EZ have additional trucks while ABC does not. However, this evidence proves little to that EZ would use additional trucks to serve WG. Perhaps such trucks are used for other towns. Even if EZ’s new trucks will be use to WG, the arguer also fail to provide any assurance that WG’s trash collection requires more than 20 trucks, or even less. Perhaps the number of ABC’s trucks is enough to WG’s waste collection. Moreover, the arguer might unfairly neglect ABC’s advantages which might be the advanced technology of trash collection and the large size of its trucks over EZ’s.
       Thirdly, the survey which the arguer cites provides little support to his recommendation. The arguer fails to provide evidences that the respondents are the typical of WG’s all residents. Perhaps the respondents just accounted for only a small potion of all residents. Or perhaps the options in the survey might merely included “agree” and “disagree”, and therefore might distort the consequence of the survey.
       Finally, even if the residents in WG are generally satisfied with EZ, it is entirely possible that ABC will provide more satisfactory services. Besides, perhaps the town council advocated contrasting with ABC due to other more significant projects which need appropriation urgently.
       In sum, the recommendation is not well reasoned.To make it logically acceptable, the arguer would have to demonstrate that the raise of Ez’s monthly fee is reasonable and EZ’s services are more suitable to EZ over ABC. Additionally, the arguer must provide more information about the survey. It would also be helpful to inquire ABC’s advantages which the arguer unjustly does not mention in the recommendation.

vanluckerUID：2267009

https://bbs.gter.net/thread-416323-1-1.html

分析的很好,有空我该改改写过的A了