argument17【小鸡快跑】郁闷啊

小培UID: 2195743

TOPIC: ARGUMENT17


In the argument, the editor draws a conclusion that the town council should choose the EZ rather than ABC. And the aditor use
several evidence to support his claim. In my view, the argument  have relies on series of unsubstantiated suumptions which rend it
unconvincing as it stands.

The threshold assumption upon which the recommendation relies is that the town council change to use ABC instead of EZ just due to
the increasing fee of the EZ.  As a common sense, it is satirized that the consideration about the public devices serviced for the town
just bases on the fee, it is certainly that not only the fee could be merely standard to measure whether the things is suitable or not, but some other factors also play a significant effect on the standards, such as the skill of the waste disposal, the attitude to service for the
people. without the whole aspects' consideration of two companies, it is presumptuous to reach a conclusion. Furthermore, we could
consider that the ture reason for ABC is that this company have a advanced skill , which could not only handle the waste cleanly but also product less pullution to the evironment.

Secondly, the editor unfairly assumes that the EZ is better to the ABC. The editor believe that the  residents in town would benefit
from the additionl collection with EZ has provided each week.It is possibly that collecting trash once a week is enough , while an
addition collection would be invalid and superflous, adn thus could not convince us that the once more is worthy of the increase of fee.
Additionly, those additional trucks maybe collect trash for others towns rather than WG town.Or perhaps the fleet of 20 trucks EZ
already possesses is able to accomplish all the trush colletion tasks.Without out accounting for these and other possible factors, the
editor can not justify the assumption that the residents would benefit from the EZ.

Finally, the mere fact that nost respondents to a recent survey consider EZ's service satisfactory provides littile support to the conclsion.The editor fails to provide assurances that the number of the respondents is statistically significant or that the respondents are
representative of the overall people whose trush EZ collect.Lacking the information about the randomness and size of the survey's
sample, the editor could not rely on the survey to draw any conclusion whatsoever.

Furthermore, the editor provides no information about the ABC's survice, which maybe better to EZ's.The last one which i have to point out that there is no dates could prove whether the people of the towm care about the 25% more fee or not.

In sum, the argument is not well supported. to bolster it the editor should provide evidence to substantiate the benefit which residents obtain from the EZ.

[ 本帖最后由 小培 于 2007-2-25 23:10 编辑 ]