ARGUMENT17 [Victors]小组第一次作业

jennetrjUID: 2275453

17.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."


40 min     609 words

In this letter, the author concludes that Walnut Grove town council made a mistake in hiring ABC Waste for trash collection instead of EZ Disposal, the one that has served the town for ten years and[but] increased the service charge recently. To justify this conclusion, the author claims that EZ collects trash one more time every week than ABC does and it has ordered more trucks. Moreover, the author cites the survey which was held last year indicating that 80% of respondents were satisfied with EZ's service. At first glance, the argument seems to be somehow plausible, but further reflection reveals several flaws in it.

To begin with, the author unfairly assumes that EZ does better job than ABC based on the mere facts that it collects trash more often than the latter one and has ordered additional trucks. Such evidence is insufficient to prove the causal relationship between these two events[frequency of trash collection and better service]. It is totally possible that EZ could hardly collect all the trash in the town and that's why it ordered more trucks to improve the working capacity. Or even after obtaining more the trucks, its capacity still could not reach the expanding volume of the trash produced in Walnut Grove. Without eliminate or even consider such possibilities, the author could not convince me to accept the assumption that EZ can provide effective service.

Even if EZ has the ability to deal with trash collecting, whether residents are satisfied with its service still opens to be a question. The survey provided in the passage is too vague to be informative. There is no indication of who carried out the town survey last year, how many people were enrolled in the survey and if they were representative of the general population. Maybe EZ itself sent out 20 questionnaires to downtown residents, where provided with the [who received]best service. Or only 10 people replied, among which 8 scored as 'satisfied' while the total population of Walnut Grove reaches 200,000. Either scenario, if true, would serve to undermine the conclusion that residents were satisfied with EZ's performance.

Finally, the author overlooks the disadvantage of continuing hiring EZ for the contract. It may turn out that the disadvantages much overweigh the advantages. For instance, EZ might only collect the trash to the landfills which are responsible for the high incidence of allergy among residents in the city while other companies could offer special techniques to recycle some part of the trash to decrease such possibility. Besides, the author alleges that EZ and ABC are two mutually exclusive alternatives and leaves no room for middle ground. There is no reason to impose an either/or choice. Maybe there are other companies offering better work and lower charges[charging the less], or the city council could offer both EZ and ABC the contract so that each company could deal with smaller region thus improve the working efficiency. Until the author completes the analysis, the recommendation could not be taken seriously.

In sum, the argument is groundless as it stands. To consolidate it, the author should provide more evidence, other than the mere facts that EZ has ordered new trucks or it collects trash more often, to show that it does better job than ABC or any other peer companies. In addition, the author should complete the analysis to ensure us that hiring EZ for collecting trash in Walnut has no other disadvantages and if there are other companies available to provide better service with lower price. To better evaluate the passage, we need more statistics---- maybe by [ the way of providing] randomized polls among city residents, to see whether they are satisfied with EZ’s work or would they prefer to change the company.

AW练习有两个月了，回头再自己修改一下，看一下G友的意见


[ 本帖最后由 jennetrj 于 2007-6-9 21:18 编辑 ]

乳虎UID: 2251211

40 min     609 words

In this letter, the author concludes that Walnut Grove town council made a mistake in hiring ABC Waste for trash collection instead of EZ Disposal, the one that has served the town for ten years and increased the service charge recently. To justify this conclusion, the author claims that EZ collects trash one more time every week than ABC does and it has ordered more trucks. Moreover, the author cites the survey which was held last year indicating that 80% of respondents were satisfied with EZ's service. At first glance, the argument seems to be somehow plausible, but further reflection reveals several flaws in it.

To begin with, the author unfairly assumes that EZ does better job than ABC based on the mere facts that it collects trash more often than the latter one and has ordered additional trucks. Such evidence is insufficient to prove the causal relationship between these two events. It is totally possible that EZ could hardly collect all the trash in the town and that's why it ordered more trucks to improve the working capacity. ("Moreover, EZ-which, like ABC, currently has a fleet of 20 trucks-has ordered additional trucks"不是说像一样拥有一支25辆卡车得车队,并且在此基础上又新买了一些吗?)Or even after obtaining more the trucks, its capacity still could not reach the expanding volume of the trash produced in Walnut Grove. Without eliminate or even consider such possibilities, the author could not convince me to accept the assumption that EZ can provide effective service.

Even if EZ has the ability to deal with trash collecting, whether residents are satisfied with its service still opens to be a question. The survey provided in the passage is too vague to be informative. There is no indication of who carried out the town survey last year, how many people were enrolled in the survey and if they were representative of the general population9(A good point). Maybe EZ itself sent out 20 questionnaires to downtown residents, where provided with the best service. Or only 10 people replied, among which 8 scored as 'satisfied' while the total population of Walnut Grove reaches 200,000. Either scenario, if true, would serve to undermine the conclusion that residents were satisfied with EZ's performance.

Finally, the author overlooks the disadvantage of continuing hiring EZ for the contract. It may turn out that the disadvantages much overweigh the advantages. For instance, EZ might only collect the trash to the landfills which are responsible for the high incidence of allergy among residents in the city while other companies could offer special techniques to recycle some part of the trash to decrease such possibility. Besides, the author alleges that EZ and ABC are two mutually exclusive alternatives and leaves no room for middle ground. There is no reason to impose an either/or choice. Maybe there are other companies offering better work and lower charges, or the city council could offer both EZ and ABC the contract so that each company could deal with smaller region thus improve the working efficiency. Until the author completes the analysis, the recommendation could not be taken seriously.

In sum, the argument is groundless as it stands. To consolidate it, the author should provide more evidence, other than the mere facts that EZ has ordered new trucks or it collects trash more often, to show that it does better job than ABC or any other peer companies. In addition, the author should complete the analysis to ensure us that hiring EZ for collecting trash in Walnut has no other disadvantages and if there are other companies available to provide better service with lower price. To better evaluate the passage, we need more statistics---- maybe by randomized polls among city residents, to see whether they are satisfied with EZ’s work or would they prefer to change the company.
高手,偶深受启发!

wy9187UID: 2200959

看过后才发现,差距!
文章写的感觉比较好!
我自己的思路有些不同,第二段我的思路是: 虽然EZ订购了新车,但是不一定会用于收集垃圾.