Argument17【0806G desperado小组】第三次作业by坐照

wangyu0920UID: 199396

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: 456         DATE: 2007-12-14 15:12:52
1.         每周收两次垃圾是否必要，也许收一次已经能够满足干净舒适的需要
2.         20辆新增卡车是否有必要，即使有必要，这20辆卡车是否会被用于Walnut Grove，而且有可能因为成本增加而导致未来的费用上涨
3.         调查并不可靠，也许被调查者是因为满意才填写的问卷，反对者的意见没有被包含在调查中，并且被调查的小镇环境与Walnut Grove可能有差别，EZ提供的服务也可能有差别，因此不具有达标性
4.         没有对EZ和ABC进行全面的比较，对ABC只谈了费用和收垃圾的次数，并没有考虑服务质量和态度等。也没有分析EZ提价的原因，价格上升或许是因为管理不善，财务危机等。

In this letter, the author recommends Walnut Grove should continue the contract with EZ who can provide better and exceptional services even though they raise their monthly fees by 25%. However, I find this argument unreliable since little convincing evidences are provided to support the recommendation.

First of all, the letter is based on an assumption that twice collection of trash is better than once. While I doubt that is it necessary for the residents to pay 25% extra fees and just have one more collection which is unwanted, perhaps collecting trash once a week is effective enough to keep the environment clean and comfortable.

Moreover, the letter asserts that 20 additional trucks will help EZ to provide better services. But there is not any further evidence to convince me that the 20 additional trucks are needed to improve the trash collection condition. Even if the Walnut Grove town is lacking of trucks, the author does not list any proof that the additional trucks will be used in Walnut Grove rather than other areas. Perhaps the costs of the trucks will lead an increase of the monthly fees in the future and none of the residents in Walnut Grove will benefit from the trucks.

In addition, the survey is statistically unconvincing as well, since the letter does not provide more information about the respondents and the town where they live. Perhaps the respondents answer the questions because they are satisfied with the EZ's services, which mean that the objective opinions are not included in the survey. Or maybe the circumstance of the town is different from Walnut Grove and EZ provides different services to the two towns. If then, the result of the survey would not be considered.

Finally, the letter does not make a comprehensive comparison between EZ and ABC. The author talks nothing about ABC but monthly fees and weekly collection. Nevertheless, I argue that there are much more factors to judge whether Walnut Grove should switch or not, such as qualities of trash collections and attitudes of services. Also, the letter does not mention why EZ raised its monthly fee. Perhaps it is due to poor management or financial crisis; I will not be convinced unless there is further information to make a detailed analysis.

In conclusion, the argument is unpersuasive as it stands. To bolster it the author must provide more evidences that (1) Walnut Grove does need two trash collection a week (2) the 20 additional trucks will benefit the residents of Walnut Grove and will not cause an increase of monthly fee (3) the respondents of the survey is reliable and representative (4) the increase of monthly fee is due to their better services rather than other manage or financial problems.