argument17[0806G-desperado小组]第三次作业by hongdan

hongdanUID: 2228730

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."

EZ一周两次收拾垃圾，ABC一周一次。 EZ有20辆车，除此之外，还有多余的车。不一定就好
EZ有例外的服务，80%的人满意。
EZ价格虽然比ABC高，没有任何关于ABC的信息了。
已经和EZ签订了10年的合同，消费者想换别家试试的心里。
The arguer professes that people in Walnut Grove should continue using EZ Disposal for trash collection services. Based on the fact that the more frequency of trash collection, the more trucks and exceptional service of EZ than ABC, the argument appears to be well presented, yet a close scrutiny reveals that it is far from satisfactory reasoned. Indeed, the argument suffers from several logic flaws, listed as follows.

A threshold problem involved in this argument lies in the hasty conclusion that EZ is better than ABC according to the scant provided evidence. Although EZ collects trash twice a week, more than ABC, it is entirely possible that ABC does better than EZ. Perhaps the efficiency of workers in EZ is so low that they have to spend additional time to collect all trashes, whereas for workers in ABC, once a week is sufficient enough for them to collect all trashes. In such case, the frequency of collecting trashes cannot be the pivotal factor for judging which company is better. Moreover, the arguer cited the additional trucks in EZ to convince the conclusion. However, that where are the additional trucks put into use is not pointed out, and therefore it is quite possible that these extra trucks have nothing to do with the collecting work. Maybe the extra trucks will be used to carry some cargoes, not relevant to trashes at all, such as some newly furniture, day-to-day office facilities, or experimental apparatus. Without accounting for these possibilities, the arguer cannot substantiate the correctness of his judgment.

Another evidence in this argument relies on last year’s town survey, which indicates that 80% respondents in the survey are satisfied with the exceptional service of EZ. However, the arguer does not give any detail about the exceptional service. Whether the service is done about collecting trashes remains a question. Even if the exceptional service is performed to improve collecting trashes, the credibility of the survey is still doubtful. How did the survey carry out? What about the number of respondents? Is the sample representative enough to represent the real psychological conditions of the residents? Any such question will add to the query of the survey. Without detail information about the survey, it does not guarantee the reliability of the survey.

Given that the above mentioned problem can be well validated, the arguer still fails to persuade us that ABC doom to be bad than EZ. Due to the scant information of ABC, just the unchanged fee, the arguer leaves other possible benefits of ABC out of consideration. It is equally possible that ABC’s working efficiency and service in collecting trash are much better than EZ. In the meanwhile, the low fee is very likely to result in people’s preference. Although people in Walnut Grove have been using EZ for ten years, it is entirely possible that people are not satisfied with EZ for a long time and people are very willing to try a new company. These possibilities do very probably occur.

To sum up, the argument is not sound as it stands after the above discussion. Only by throughout, careful investigation and detail comparison of the two companies can the recommendation be confirmed.

gaojiehahaUID: 2149729

The arguer professes that people in Walnut Grove should continue using EZ Disposal for trash collection services. Based on the fact that the more frequency of trash collection, the more trucks and exceptional service(这是我们要批判的，说survey更好) of EZ than ABC, the argument appears to be well presented, yet a close scrutiny reveals that it is far from satisfactory reasoned. Indeed, the argument suffers from several logical flaws, listed as follows.

A threshold problem involved in this argument lies in the hasty conclusion that EZ is better than ABC according to the scant provided evidence. Although EZ collects trash twice a week, more than ABC, it is entirely possible that ABC does better than EZ. Perhaps the efficiency of workers in EZ is so low that they have to spend additional time to collect all trashes, whereas for workers in ABC, once a week is sufficient enough for them to collect all trashes. In such case, the frequency of collecting trashes cannot be the pivotal factor for judging which company is better. Moreover, the arguer cited the additional trucks in EZ to convince the conclusion. However, that where are the additional trucks put into use is not pointed out, and therefore it is quite possible that these extra trucks have nothing to do with the collecting work. Maybe the extra trucks will be used to carry some cargoes, not relevant to trashes at all, such as some newly furniture, day-to-day office facilities, or experimental apparatus. Without accounting for these possibilities, the arguer cannot substantiate the correctness of his judgment.

Another evidence in this argument relies on last year’s town survey, which indicates that 80% respondents in the survey are satisfied with the exceptional service of EZ. However, the arguer does not give any detail about the exceptional service. Whether the service is done about collecting trashes remains a question. Even if the exceptional service is performed to improve collecting trashes, the credibility of the survey is still doubtful. How did the survey carry out? What about the number of respondents? Is the sample representative enough to represent the real psychological conditions of the residents? Any such question will add to the query of the survey. Without detail information about the survey, it does not guarantee the reliability of the survey.

Given that the above mentioned problem can be well validated, the arguer still fails to persuade us that ABC doom to be bad than EZ. Due to the scant information of ABC, just the unchanged fee, the arguer leaves other possible benefits of ABC out of consideration. It is equally possible that ABC’s working efficiency and service in collecting trash are much better than EZ. In the meanwhile, the low fee is very likely to result in people’s preference. Although people in Walnut Grove have been using EZ for ten years, it is entirely possible that people are not satisfied with EZ for a long time and people are very willing to try a new company. These possibilities do very probably occur.

To sum up, the argument is not sound as it stands after the above discussion. Only by throughout, careful investigation and detail comparison of the two companies can the recommendation be confirmed.

也是几乎没怎么改动，没怎么找出来问题，呵呵！
我觉得论证的很好

yzhxinerUID: 2422010

EZ一周两次收拾垃圾，ABC一周一次。 EZ有20辆车，除此之外，还有多余的车。不一定就好EZ有例外的服务，80%的人满意。EZ价格虽然比ABC高，没有任何关于ABC的信息了。已经和EZ签订了10年的合同，消费者想换别家试试的心里。The arguer professes that people in Walnut Grove should continue using EZ Disposal for trash collection services. Based on the fact that the more frequency of trash collection, the more trucks and exceptional service of EZ than ABC, the argument appears to be well presented, yet a close scrutiny reveals that it is far from satisfactory reasoned. Indeed, the argument suffers from several logic flaws, listed as follows.

A threshold problem involved in this argument lies in the hasty conclusion that EZ is better than ABC according to the scant provided evidence. Although EZ collects trash twice a week, more than ABC, it is entirely possible that ABC does better than EZ. Perhaps the efficiency of workers in EZ is so low that they have to spend additional time to collect all trashes, whereas for workers in ABC, once a week is sufficient enough for them to collect all trashes. In such case, the frequency of collecting trashes cannot be the pivotal factor for judging which company is better. Moreover, the arguer cited the additional trucks in EZ to convince the conclusion. However, that where are the additional trucks put into use is not pointed out, and therefore it is quite possible that these extra trucks have nothing to do with the collecting work. Maybe the extra trucks will be used to carry some cargoes, not relevant to trashes at all, such as some newly furniture, day-to-day office facilities, or experimental apparatus. Without accounting for these possibilities, the arguer cannot substantiate the correctness of his judgment.

Another evidence in this argument relies on last year’s town survey, which indicates that 80% respondents in the survey are satisfied with the exceptional service of EZ. However, the arguer does not give any detail about the exceptional service. Whether the service is done about collecting trashes remains a question. Even if the exceptional service is performed to improve collecting trashes, the credibility of the survey is still doubtful. How did the survey carry out? What about the number of respondents? Is the sample representative enough to represent the real psychological conditions of the residents? Any such question will add to the query of the survey. Without detail information about the survey, it does not guarantee the reliability of the survey.

Given that the above mentioned problem can be well validated, the arguer still fails to persuade us that ABC doom to be bad than EZ. Due to the scant information of ABC, just the unchanged fee, the arguer leaves other possible benefits of ABC out of consideration. It is equally possible that ABC’s working efficiency and service in collecting trash are much better than EZ. In the meanwhile, the low fee is very likely to result in people’s preference. Although people in Walnut Grove have been using EZ for ten years, it is entirely possible that people are not satisfied with EZ for a long time and people are very willing to try a new company. These possibilities do very probably occur(我觉得这句有点怪怪的，不知道有没有这个用法).

To sum up, the argument is not sound as it stands after the above discussion. Only by throughout, careful investigation and detail comparison of the two companies can the recommendation be confirmed.
汗，没怎么改出来，你的语言真是没话说，论证也找不出漏洞，唉。。。。