Argument17 [勇往直前小组]15th

PudingUID：2364107

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: 386 TIME: 0:30:00 DATE: 2007-8-4

In this argument, the arguer concludes that WG town council should not switch from EZ Disposal to ABC waste. To substantiate the recommendation, the arguer points out that EZ collects trash twice a week, while ABC collects only once. In addition, EZ has ordered additional trucks. The arguer cites a survey of last year to support his assertion. However, close scrutiny of the evidence reveals that it lends little credible support for the conclusion.

To begin with, the arguer rests on the assumption that people in WG needs trash collecting twice a week. Yet, there is no compelling information to support this gratuitous assumption. If only one collection is needed, EZ's two collection is to be of no value.

Furthermore, although EZ has ordered additional trucks, we are not sure whether these additional trucks will be applied for WG's trash collection. Even that is true, the arguer does not tell the concrete time when these trucks will begin to work. And no information about the comparison of the size for trucks in two firms is provided; maybe the trucks in ABC can load much more trash than those of EZ. Thus, the number of tracks cannot lend any support to the arguer's conclusion.

Last but not least, the arguer provides no assurances that the survey on which the argument relies is statistically reliable. Since we don't know the number of the residents surveyed and the number of the respondents, it is impossible to access the validity of the survey. Perhaps people who are not satisfied with EZ did not respond back. Or perhaps people may feel ABC’s service better once they try this new company. Thus, the survey cited can not be convincing to substantiate the arguer’s recommendation.

To sum up, the conclusion reached in the argument lacks credibility since the evidence cited in the analysis does not lend strong support to what the arguer claims. To make the conclusion more convincing, the author needs to provide more information concerning the factual need for the WG residents, such as how many times a week their trash should be collected, and the concrete quantity of their trash. To better evaluate the argument, we need more evidence that WG people are truly satisfied with and wanting to continue to enjoy EZ’S service. Otherwise, the argument is logically unacceptable.

nornsUID：2325187

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; 1we should continue using EZ. EZ collects trash twice a week, while ABC collects only once. 2Moreover, EZ-which, like ABC, currently has a fleet of 20 trucks-has ordered additional trucks. Finally, EZ provides exceptional service: 380 percent of respondents to last year's town survey agreed that they were 'satisfied' with EZ's performance."
WORDS: 386 TIME: 0:30:00 DATE: 2007-8-4

In this argument, the arguer concludes that WG town council should not switch from EZ Disposal to ABC waste. To substantiate the recommendation, the arguer points out that EZ collects trash twice a week, while ABC collects only once. In addition, EZ has ordered additional trucks. The arguer cites a survey of last year to support his assertion. However, close scrutiny of the evidence reveals that it lends little credible support for the conclusion.

To begin with, the arguer 什么建立在假设上？rests on the assumption that people in WG needs trash collecting twice a week. Yet, there is no compelling information to support this gratuitous assumption. If only one collection is needed, EZ's two collection is to be of no value.

Furthermore, although EZ has ordered additional trucks, we are not sure whether these additional trucks will be applied for WG's trash collection. Even that is true, the arguer does not tell the concrete time when these trucks will begin to work. And no information about the comparison of the size for trucks in two firms is provided; maybe the trucks in ABC can load much more trash than those of EZ. Thus, the number of tracks cannot lend any support to the arguer's conclusion.

Last but not least, the arguer provides no assurances that the survey on which the argument relies is statistically reliable（这个段首换掉， 你主要还是在讲evidence is insufficient for the conclusion就这一个论据你掉了个层次－即使对EZ满意不带表对ABC不满意 可能没用或更满意）. Since we don't know the number of the residents surveyed and the number of the resp+
ondents, it is impossible to access the validity of the survey. Perhaps people who are not satisfied with EZ did not respond back. Or perhaps people may feel ABC’s service better once they try this new company. Thus, the survey cited can not be convincing to substantiate the arguer’s recommendation.

整体来说你还掉了个层次， 就是即使价钱和这些实力上EZ好， 服务呢？最关键的是它服务质量好不好


To sum up, the conclusion reached in the argument lacks credibility since the evidence cited in the analysis does not lend strong support to what the arguer claims. To make the conclusion more convincing, the author needs to provide more information concerning the factual need for the WG residents, such as how many times a week their trash should be collected, and the concrete quantity of their trash. To better evaluate the argument, we need more evidence that WG people are truly satisfied with and wanting to continue to enjoy EZ’S service. Otherwise, the argument is logically unacceptable.