argument17 [0710G Victors互助小组]第2次作业我的第一次作文

yulyfeiyangUID: 2295313

Argument 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."

Argument 17: Walnut Grove's trash collection service

      In this argument, the arguer advocates that Walnut Grove should continue using EZ Disposal (E), which has had the contract for trash collection services in Walnut Grove for the past ten years and recently raised its monthly fee from $2,000 to $2,500 a month, rather than choose to ABC Waste (A) whose fee is still $2000. This recommendation is based on the observation that EZ collects trash twice a week, while ABC collects only once. Moreover, EZ, like ABC, currently has a fleet of 20 trucks. Meanwhile, the arguer assumes the additional trucks ordered by EZ would service to the town. And this argument points out that in the last year's town survey, 80 percent of respondents agreed that they were 'satisfied' with EZ’s performance. This argument is problematic for these reasons follow.

        The major problem with this argument is that the premise is very unfair. It is considered that A couldn't provide satisfied service like E, yet without enough evident to support. In addition to speaking of the A company to accept a garbage every week, the theory breaks the service record that didn't provide any concerning the A company, for example reputation problem, adoption what technique etc. Yet we can't exclude the possibility that the service provided by A is satisfied. And it might be true that trashing once a week is enough.

      Another flaw that weakens this argument is that the additional trucks ordered by EZ wouldn't service to the town.

      In addition, the arguer ignores several factors that might undermine the argument. One factor is the individuals who reply the survey might almost are who agreed with EZ’s performance. We couldn’t get enough evident to justify. The theory breaks and even don't tell us the E why wants to lift price suddenly, and price whether reasonable. We don't expel the contract of the decade to don't make the E be subjected to the pressure of the competition to cause to lift price.

      To sum up, the conclusion lacks credibility because the evidence cited in the analysis does not lend strong support to what the arguer maintains. To strengthen the argument, the arguer would have to provide more evidence concerning the demographic profile of the survey's respondents.