argument17 【0710G Victors互助小组】第二次作业

#十指飞舞UID: 2330769

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:                  DATE: 2007-5-12
提纲：
1.     每周收垃圾的次数多并不意味着能提供更好的服务。
2.     拥有更多的卡车与服务没有因果联系。
3.     调查者是否有代表性，调查结果是否可信。
4.     没有提供更多ABC的服务的信息，有可能ABC提供的服务比E好而价钱更便宜。

  In this letter, the author recommends that Walnut Grove's town (WG) council should continue to employ EZ Disposal instead of ABC Waste although the former raises it monthly fee by 25 percent. To substantiate the recommendation the arguer points out that EZ collects trash once more than ABC does and possesses more trucks, moreover, the arguer cites the result of a last-year's town survey to demonstrate that EZ provides exceptional service. However, close scrutiny of the evidence reveals that it lends little support to the recommendation.

  First of all, the author takes it for granted that collecting trash much often shows that EZ’s service is better. Yet the letter contains no other information to support the assumption. It is equally possible that there is not so much trash to be collected in this area, collecting trash once a week would be enough. Lacking such evidence, we cannot rule out the possibility that twice a week would be redundant. Although the one more time service per week only costs a 25% fee raise, but if it is not necessary, it would be a waste of money for the town residents.

  In the second place, possessing more trucks doesn’t necessarily indicate more and higher quality of service in EZ. On the one hand ,EZ may have explored new business in other areas other thanputting these trucks into use in WG. On the other hand, whether it is necessary to order additional new trucks is in doubt. Maybe the amount of trucks is enough for the trash collection of WG,ordering more trucks would do nothing good to the EZ’s service but wasting available resource definitely. Therefore, I would be unconvinced until the arguer proves that these trucks are definitely used in WG.

  In the third place, the arguer provides no evidence that the respondents of the survey are representative of the overall town residents who have been served by EZ for ten years. It is entirely possible that most people who are unsatisfied with EZ have not attended the survey, or the survey sample is very small that only a few people responded to it, which renders the result of the survey incredible. Moreover, even if the result is credible, but it cannot reflect the reaction of these people to the monthly fee raise.

  Finally ,even if WG’s residents are satisfied with EZ’s performance,it doesn’t not eliminate the possibilities that these people will be just as ,if not more,satisfied with ABC’s service. Moreover, the author provides no information other than the frequency of rubbish collecting of ABC. Perhaps people are unfamiliar with ABC and maybe ABC provides better service. Moreover, the author has not told us why EZ raises the monthly fee, whether it is justifiable for the service. it is highly probable that it is the ten-year contract that causes monopoly of EZ over the business. Without rolling out these possibilities, there is no reason to prevent us from hiring ABC whose monthly fee is lower.

  To sum up, the recommendation relies on certain doubtful assumptions that render it unconvincing as it stands. To bolster the recommendation the author should provide clear evidence that the service provided by EZ is better, the reasons for raising fee in EZ, and the service comparison with ABC.