Argument17[desperado]第三次作业 by Grace

grace040802UID: 2348819

Argument17【desperado】

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: 424                   DATE: 2007-12-9 14:29:20

[outline]:
1.EZ Disposal's collecting trash twice may be not better than ABC's once.
2.Additional trucks indicates that EZ's low efficiency.
3.No evidence indicates that EZ' exceptional service.


The letter points out that Walnut Grove's town council's advocation-switching from EZ Disposal to ABC Waste-based on that EE raised its monthly fee but ABC did not using EE.To justify this statement,the arguer offers three reasons.One is EE collects trash once more than ABC,which collects only once.Another one is EE ordered sdditional trucks.And the last one is because of EE's exceptional service.It seems logical,but this letter is flawed b three obvious respects.

First of all,the fact that EE collects trash twice a week which ABC collects once provides no evidence that EE id the better choice than ABC.Perhaps EE collect rubbish twice a week because of its low efficiency.Or perhaps because the trash from the areas where EE manages is much more that those from ABC managed areas,EE has no choice but to collect twice a week.Or perhaps the citizens require EE to do so,for they are comfortable in a clean environment.Without ruling out these possibilities,the arguer cannot convice me that EE is better than ABC.

On the other hand,the fact that EE currently has ordered additional trucks cannot obviously support this argument.The additional trucks,otherwise,indicate the lower efficiency of EE than ABC's.The possiblility for ordering more than 20 trucks is that the volumn of EE's trucks are smaller than ABC's,or even that the quality is not so good.So they need to do so.Or perhaps just because of the additional trucks'fee,EE raises its mongthly fee from $2,000 to $2,500 a month.What's more,the fact that ABC just orders a fleet of 20trucks cannot unfairly be treated that it provises bad service.However,it indicates its high efficiency.This argument is unconvinced without offering the reak reason why EE orders additional trucks and proving that 20 trucks is not insufficient.

Lastly,the last year's town survey that 80% respondants were 'statisfied' with EE's performance in sufficiently convinces me that EE provides exceptional service .Because we are told nothing about the way this survey was conducted and how well it represented the public opinions.Maybe these respondants are only the EE's customers,then they cannot compare EE's service with the other company's,such as ABC.Hence,this just only indicates that they are content with EE's service,but accomplishes that EE's service id beeter than other's.Or perhaps people who take this survey are satified with EE's service.The result of the survey is incomplete to be conclusive.

In sum,this letter is unconvinced as it stands.The reasoning behind choosing EE seems logical as presented above.However,before any finaldecision are made that which company should we choose the citizens should evalute all possible alternatives and causes for EE as compares to ABC.

anndyUID: 2436020

The letter points out that Walnut Grove's town council's advocation-switching from EZ Disposal to ABC Waste-based on that EE （EZ？）raised its monthly fee but ABC did not using EE（这句话没太明白）.To justify this statement,the arguer offers three reasons.One is EE collects trash once more than ABC,which collects only once.Another one is EE ordered sdditional trucks.And the last one is because of EE's exceptional service.It seems logical,but this letter（应该说观点更好吧） is flawed b three obvious respects.

First of all,the fact that EE collects trash twice a week which ABC collects once provides no evidence that EE id the better choice than ABC.Perhaps EE collect rubbish twice a week because of its low efficiency.Or perhaps because the trash from the areas where EE manages is much more （？）that those from ABC managed areas,EE has no choice but to collect twice a week.Or perhaps the citizens require EE to do so,for they are comfortable in a clean environment（这句好像不太合适吧，如果有需求，就在一定程度上是合理的）.Without ruling out these possibilities,the arguer cannot convice me that EE is better than ABC.

On the other hand,the fact that EE currently has ordered additional trucks cannot obviously support this argument.The additional trucks,otherwise,indicate the lower efficiency of EE than ABC's（肯定描述是否合适？改成推测语气？）.The possiblility for ordering more than 20 trucks is that the volumn of EE's trucks are smaller than ABC's,or even that the quality is not so good.So they need to do so.Or perhaps just because of the additional trucks'fee,EE raises its mongthly fee from $2,000 to $2,500 a month.What's more,the fact that ABC just orders a fleet of 20trucks cannot unfairly be treated that it provises bad service.However,it indicates its high efficiency（同上）.This argument is unconvinced without offering the reak reason why EE orders additional trucks and proving that 20 trucks is not insufficient.

Lastly,the last year's town survey that 80% respondants were 'statisfied' with EE's performance in sufficiently convinces me that EE provides exceptional service .Because we are told nothing about the way this survey was conducted and how well it represented the public opinions.Maybe these respondants are only the EE's customers,then they cannot compare EE's service with the other company's,such as ABC.Hence,this just only indicates that they are content with EE's service,but accomplishes that EE's service id beeter than other's.Or perhaps people who take this survey are satified with EE's service.The result of the survey is incomplete to be conclusive.

In sum,this letter（？） is unconvinced as it stands.The reasoning behind choosing EE seems logical as presented above（这句感觉有点多余）.However,before any finaldecision are made that which company should we choose the citizens should evalute all possible alternatives and causes for EE as compares to ABC.