argument17 求拍

forward_cjjUID: 2303958

TOPIC: 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."
[未限时] 继续磨练





The speaker concludes that we should continue using ez .to validate the conclusion ,the author cites various statistical evidence about the ez’ good
performance .however ,I find this argument logically unconvincing in many aspects.
To begin with ,the author observes a correlation ship between the performance of ez and the choice. yet the correlation alone amounts to scant evidence
for the claimed cause and effect relation ship .furthermore rhe author fails to rule out other possible explanation for the governmental choice of abc
.for example ,it is entirely possible that the reason to choose the cheaper company is only economic problem ,the town council could face financial
problems nowadays .thus it is a necessity to take the economic elements into consideration first . since the author fails to account for this alternative
explanation for the choice of the town council , it is unfair to conclude that the choice of the abc is mistaken .
Secondly, even if the council could afford the fees of the trash collection service,the author fails to provide any credible information or evidence that
the ez ‘s  service id better. The author cites that ez collects trash twice a week ,while abc collects only once .however,it is entirely possible that the
performance of trash collection over the two times is no better than abc collection just for once.so as it stands the survey is unreliable and lends no
credible evidence to the conclusion .
Finally ,the author cites the survey that most of the respondents were satisfied with ez ‘s performance last year .yet we are not informed how many
people were surveyed but did not respond .in addition the greater the number ,the less reliable the survey .even if the survey is reliable ,it is also
possible that the service whose performance is exceptional last year may become worse than ever this year .thus the author provide no credible
evidence that this is the case .
In conclusion the argument is logically flawed and unconvincing as it is .to bolster it he must provide clearer evidence that the town council could
afford the higher fees fundamentally .such evidence might include the following ：the specific performance of the ec in every week and specific
evidence that the  town would benefit from an additional trash a week .the more reliable  evidence of the demographic profile of the survey ‘s
respondents .