Argument17 补作业

mhyxxcmzUID: 178642

2007.2.8

Argument17

Topic:

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."

Outline：

1、  twice未必比once好。看垃圾回收点的多少，覆盖街区比例（未提），工作效率，细心程度有关。

2、  20辆卡车，工作效率上未必等同，受行车路线，管理模式的影响。有可能出车少，一周总车次少。新车的何时使用也没有给出。（未提）

3、  exceptional service未必对环境有帮助。（文中未提）

4、  respondents可能集中在环境好的街区，并且可能对ABC更满意。

  In this letter, the editor attempts to convince us that Walnut Grove's town council (W) should continue using EZ Disposal (E) rather than ABC Waste (A) despite of the higher monthly fee. To bolster this conclusion the author points out some E's advantages by making some comparisons of E with A. However, careful examination of this supporting evidence reveals that the whole recommendation is based on unsubstantiated assumptions.

  To begin with, the first unsubstantiated evidence cited by author is that E can provide better service by collecting trash twice as often as A each week. Although the support seems logical, author provides no evidence that collection twice makes our town cleaner than once a week. Perhaps A's service is more excellent due to employee’s carefulness. Or, perhaps it is more suitable collecting route and appropriate managing routine that make A's work more effective. Lacking such evidence it is entirely possible that supporting service once per week would be of benefit to our town's environment.

  Moreover, the fact given by author that E has ordered additional trucks justify little in itself about better service. Perhaps the current fleet of 20 trucks which belongs to E not tries its best to work, but contributes little every time. As a result, the total times of collecting truck one week may be even less than A. Even if E's trucks put into work, there is no unquestionable support to verify that efficiency of each track can come up to A's which may operate under a sound supervision. If so, then the mount of trucks would be untrustworthy reason to prove that government should choose E’s costlier service.

  Finally, the author provides no assurances that the survey on which the argument depends is statistically reliable. Unless the survey's respondents are representative of the overall population of the town resident, the author cannot rely on it to predict the real satisfaction rate of E. Perhaps the respondents surveyed may most settle the dirt free block which E focuses on cleaning, whereas others may be in opposite condition. Moreover, it is utterly probable that the resident would be more satisfied A's services.

  In sum, the recommendation is not well supported as it stands. To strengthen it, the author must provide adequate evidence to indicate that E would provide more effective services and W would benefit from an additional trash collection. To better assess the strength of the recommendation, the author also need to provide more information that services which council abandons can make our town cleaner without doubt and most resident of town favor it over A.