argument17 『勇往直前小组』第十五次作业linshao

linshaoUID：2338229

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."

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 author asserts that the extra fee of $500 per month is worthwhile and the town council should not switch to another Waste company. However, close scrutiny on the evidence provided by the author reveals that it lends little credible support to this conclusion.

First of all, the author compares the times of collecting trash per week. Then it seems that twice is better than only once. However, we all know that EZ has kept this twice for 10 years. Why should they charge more fee for the same service as twice a week in the future? Consider the ABC, maybe once per week is sufficient for the little trash of this town. Of course, more times is good for us if no extra money be charged, otherwise once a week will be a good choice.

In addition, author provides is that the additional trucks ordered by EZ. But shall we be benefit from these trucks? No evidence can show that. Is there any extra service or more times for collecting trash? It seems not the case, at least the author has not indicated. If the service is not improved, these trucks might have other use such as expanding the business of EZ. Or perhaps some old trucks have broken down. In any case, that if these trucks have no relevant to our citizens, the extra purchase of these trucks cannot be paid by us.

Finally, we also don't know how the survey the author provides was conducted. Perhaps it was only conducted in the blocks near the EZ company for easy to be carried on. If so, however, it cannot represent the ideas of other districts' residents. Maybe the service in suburb is not as good as the district near the company, and residents in there would be 'unsatisfied' either. Even it represents the attitudes of all people in the city, we cannot assume that they will continue to show the same satisfaction after the rise in price. After all, people consider that higher price should company better services, so the extra fee would possibly lead to a strong dissatisfaction.

In conclusion, any rise in price must have proper reasons for extra benefit to the consumer, but the EZ does not, at least the author does not provide. Maybe a survey in a title 'Will you be satisfied after our company's rise in price for such additional services?' will better support author’s recommendation.

[ 本帖最后由 linshao 于 2007-8-6 23:57 编辑 ]