argument17 4月作文小组4月7日第十四次作业 by寂寞樱花

寂寞樱花UID：2306511

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."
WORDS: 454          TIME: 0:28:29          DATE: 2007-4-7

In this argument the author reaches the conclusion that Walnut Grove's (WG) town council should continue to use EZ Disposal even if it has raised its monthly fee. The reason the author gives to support his conclusion is that EZ collects trash once more than ABC and has ordered additional trucks. In addition, the author cites a survey as a support of this conclusion too. I find this argument is unconvincing in several respects.

First of all, one of the reasons the author gives to prove that EZ is better than ABC is that EZ collects trash once more than ABC every week. But the author has gives no information about the efficiency of the two companies, it is possible that ABC is more efficient than EZ in collecting trash so it is enough for ABC only to collect trash once in a week. Moreover, there is no information about that how many times do WG residents need for collecting trash in one week. Perhaps once a week is enough, and twice is a waste, so there is no need for giving additional fee for the waste one. And the author does not give this information so the premise of the conclusion is not reliable.

Second, the author's another evidence to show that EZ will be better is that EZ has ordered additional trucks which means exceptional service. However, there is no sign to indicate that the additional trucks will be used in WG, if the trucks are not used in WG but other places; the exceptional service is no guarantee. Even if that the truck will be used in WG, the author also fails to prove that WG need a exceptional service, if the service now is enough, there is no reason for giving the additional fee for the exceptional one. If the author cannot rule out these possibilities, I will not accept the conclusion.

Finally, the survey that given by the author is not reliable. There is no information about how many people respond it and how does the survey conduct. Maybe there are only 2 person responded to the survey in 200 people which made the survey is not believable. So the author should gives the concrete information about the survey and prove that it is authorized.

To sum up, the argument is not persuade as it seems. To make it more convincing, the author should provide information about the service that EZ could provided in WG to demonstrate that it is better than ABC and the reason why EZ has raised is monthly fee. Additionally, the author should make the survey reliable and provide the finance condition about the WG's council that if it could afford the raised fee.

CLVolkovUID：2305902

因为同样的原因用附件上传。

所有修改的记录我都有保存（毕竟有些比较好的用词还是需要积累的），只是专门用一个文件作为缓存。希望文件名的相同不会引起误解。