argument17 [076G飞跃小组]cager第二次作业 求拍

cagerUID: 2267706

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."


The argument recommends that Walnut Grove's town council should continue using EZ Disposal. To support the recommendation, the arguer cites that EZ collects trash twice a week, while ABC collects only once. He also cites the fact that EZ has ordered more trucks, although it owns the same quantities of trucks as ABC now. Besides, he cites the survey that 80 percent of respondents to a survey satisfied with EZ's performance. Close scrutiny of the facts, leads to many flaws of the argument.

In the first place, that EZ collects trash one more time than ABC a week does not necessarily indicate that EZ has done better than ABC. Quantity does not equal to Quality. Perhaps the attitude of workers in ABC are aggressive and disposing once a week is enough for them, while although twice a week, EZ are still not up to the grade. It is entirely possible that ABC does better than EZ, although they collect trash just once a week.

In the second place, the arguer provides no evidence that additional trucks will enhance the efficiency and quality of EZ. Maybe the trucks are not utilized to serve for disposing. Also perhaps to the large amount work of EZ, the 20 trucks can not help much. For that matter, the work of the EZ will not be meliorated at all. Even though EZ's quality can be improved, there is no proof that the ABC is inferior to EZ without those trucks. If the current trucks are sufficient for ABC to finish their jobs, they do not need more trucks at all.

In the third place, that EZ provides exceptional service stands for nothing. Maybe residents do not satisfy with the service provided by EZ. For instance, the service is just distribution of some paper about health once a year. In that case, it is possible that the service, not essential to residents, are not cared at all, compared with the quality of disposal. Besides, the arguer does not offer any information of the service of ABC. Perhaps the service of ABC is much more enticing than that of EZ. What’s more, there is no evidence that the survey is reasonable. If the respondents of the survey, satisfied with EZ, are just the small part of all residents, then the rest majority of residents, not content with EZ, will prefer to ABC. I am not convinced without more information about detailed instance of the survey and the service provided by EZ and ABC respectively.

All in all, the argument needs additional evidences to make it credible. The arguer should provide more firm evidences to prove that the quality of EZ is indeed superior to ABC, and the arguer must think of other aspects such as expense, service and etc. Besides, the council could consider whether or not there are other better schemes to choose.