Argument17 第一次发argument,感觉比较垃圾，呵呵

宇文化天UID: 2236904

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, and 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."
WORDS: 343          TIME: 0:30:00          DATE: 2007-2-25

In this argument, the arguer claims that Walnut Grove's town should still use EZ Disposal instead of switching to ABC waste though it has raised its monthly fee to 2500 dollar. To justify his claim, the arguer provides the evidence that EZ collects trash twice a week while ABC collects only once. In addition, the arguer tell us that EZ has just ordered 20 trucks, just the same with ABC. And the arguer  tells us that the survey in last year showed that 80 percent of respondents satisfied with EZ. This argument suffers several critical fallacies.

First of all, this argument is based on the problematic assumption that EZ collects trash twice a week while ABC collects only once, so EZ is more effective than ABC. Maybe EZ each time only collects a little of the trash, but ABC can collect all trash one time. The arguer has made a big mistake that equal quantity to quality.

In the second place, the arguer fail to prove that the result of the survey is convinced. He only tells us that 80 percent of the respondents were satisfied with EZ's service. But he fail to point out that the percent of people who respondent the survey. May just a few people respondent the survey, so the result can't tell us anything.

What further weaken the argument is that the fact the arguer pointed out in the survey. The fact that many residents are satisfied with EZ' service can't demonstrate people don't like ABC's performance. It is possible that the residents are more satisfied with ABC's service.

Last but not the least, the arguer points out that EZ has ordered more trucks, he neglect to tell us anything about ABC. Possibly, ABC has ordered far more than 20 trucks now.

To conclude, this argument is not well reasoned. To let us accept his point, the arguer should provide more evidence to prove that EZ is better than ABC. Additionally, the arguer must provide evidence to eliminate all the above –mentioned possibility that might weaken the argument.