argument17 求拍,留链必回

leopard416UID: 2373639

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: 179          TIME: 00:30:00          DATE: 2007-9-1 15:18:55

This argument recommends that Walnut Grove town should not switch from EZ Disposal 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. This argument is based on EZ collects trash twice a week, while ABC collects only once. An addition evidence that EZ has ordered additional trucks is cited to strengthen this proposal. To justify this claim, the arguer provides a survey which shows 80% of the respondents were "satisfied" with EZ's performance. However, the argument is fraught with vague, oversimplified and unwarranted assumptions.

First, the arguer commits a fallacy of causal oversimplification. EZ collects trash more often then does ABC do not necessarily indicate that EZ's service is good than is ABC. No survey or evidence shows that it is not enough to collect once a week, there might be a situation that twice is too often and unnecessary. Several other factors will also influence the satisfaction with the srvice EZ or ABC provides like the time when the trucks arrive. If the trucks arrive too early or too late, they will disturb peoples' life. People will also notice whether the trucks are clean and the employees are specialized.

Second, the evidence that EZ has ordered additional trucks is not sufficient to validate the assumption EZ is better than ABC. The arguer doesn't mention how these trucks will be used, if they are not used for trash collection service, there's no way to say the service of EZ will be better. The addition of trucks will raise the cost of EZ, which might cause decline of the quality of the service.

Third, the study in the survey is incomplete and unscientific. No details are quoted to show the respondents are randomly chosen and the procedure in survey is scientific. The survey still doesn't show citizen in Walnut Grove town prefer ABC to EZ, satisfaction with EZ's performance doesn't equal to vote.

The arguer assumes that EZ and ABC are mutually exclusive alternatives and there is no room for a middle ground. However, the author provides no reason for imposing an either-or choice. We can use EZ for half of our town and use ABC for the other half at the same time. So we can compare the outcome and a competition is available.

Last, this argument commits the fallacy of hasty generalization. EZ's performance is better than ABC, suppose it is true, do not mean we must choose EZ. Considering the extra expense $500, the arguer should tell us why it is worthy choosing. We can't pay 125% of money for receiving 110% of service. EZ has had the contract for trash collection services in Walnut Grove for the past ten years, there's a possibility that it doesn't fell the pressure of competition and raise the price unreasonably.

To solidify the argument, more evidence concerning the details of the two companies such as capital, technology and credit, etc. should be presented. And the demands of the citizens and the capital of the government also should be considered.

当时第一次写半小时只写了179词,汗,这是后来补好的,欢迎来拍,留链必回