Argument17 【0710G 五一互助小组】第四次作业 by KloseChou

zhoumaye425UID: 2262458

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."

Walnut Grove的市委提议选择ABC Waste，而不是EZ Disposal（它是过去十年中和Walnut
Grove签约提供垃圾收集服务的机构），因为EZ最近把他们每月的收费从$2000提高到了$2500，而ABC仍然是$2000。但市委是错误的，我们应该继续使用EZ。EZ每周收集两次垃圾，而ABC只收集一次。而且，EZ当前的卡车拥有量和ABC一样都是20辆，但它已定购了更多的车辆。最后，EZ还提供优越的服务：去年市镇调查中80％的回应者同意他们对于EZ的表现是"满意"的。



The arguer’s view seems to be sound and convincing at first glance that Walnut Grove’s town council should continue using EZ Disposal rather than turn to ABC Waste because of the satisfactory service in the past decade, though EZ recently raised its monthly fee for 25%, which was thought worthy. However, I’m afraid his argument can hardly bear further consideration since there are several flaws in it.

To begin with, EZ collects trash twice a week, while ABC collects only once, but the fee of former is only 25% higher than the latter, which seemed to be the most obviously reason that it is better to choose EZ for the relative low price. However, the threshold assumption upon which the recommendation relies is that the town has superfluous trash which can hardly be collected once. In other word, the town may have a good control on the source of the trash, which makes the trash little enough that can be swept away only once. In that case, the additional collection is redundant only to show the low efficiency of EZ. Then why would the council pay more money for the unnecessary service?

Another powerful reason is that EZ has ordered more trucks, while ABC still holds 20 trucks, which seemed that EZ will give a better service to the town. But the arguer fails to see whether EZ offer service only to Walnut Grove. That is the additional trucks may serve another town, in which case the number of trucks serving Walnut Grove doesn’t change. Still, there is another possibility that the trucks of the EZ are too old to continue working. Therefore, EZ ordered the new trucks just to update its trucks rather than increase the number of the trucks. Followed above, how can EZ’s new ordering of additional trucks be the consideration that EZ will give a better service?

Additionally, the number that 80% of respondents to last year's town survey agreed that they were “satisfied” with EZ's performance still account nothing. Firstly, we don’t know whether the respondents are being chosen by random. Even it is, the respondents in the town were served by EZ for the past ten years, which makes them know little about ABC Waste. Maybe ABC can provide a service satisfying the residents even better. Secondly, the respondents were satisfied with EZ’s performance for the former price. That will the figures be constant after the increase of the price is a curial question that the arguer fails to consider.

To have a better service with a relative lower price is really enticing. But whether it is true indeed or just something meretricious, a second specious consideration should be taken carefully.