argument 17(desperado小组 第1次作业)有拍必回

zyb_iceUID: 2417356

"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."
1.承认2500是合理的.
2.收垃圾次数与车数不能说明服务好.
3.08%模糊,并且是去年没涨价前的.
While it is true that the facts presented in the above passage contribute to the idea that EZ is a fine Disposal, but it can hardly concluded from the argument that we should continue using EZ rather than ABC.

Firstly, the author admits the evidence that rising fee of EZ is a reasonable decision. As a payer, the town council and the large number of residents are concerned with the reason of increase fee, however, the passage offer nothing about why EZ have to increase its monthly fee from $2000 to$2500. May be EZ use the exceptional money for dividends or for welfare of the employers working in the firm, so, the money has nothing to do with improve the service such as disposing the trash more scientific and applying more sophisticated apparatus. Moreover, is it another 200 enough? We have to considerate the thought of the resident whether them likely to pay more money to EZ. The author has to import the reason of increasing fee.

Another problem is that frequency of collecting trash and the number of trucks can not indicate the EZ is more better . Although EZ collects trash twice a week, more than ABC, it is entirely perhaps that efficiency of workers applying in EZ is so low or the number of workers is so less that they have to spend one more time to complete this task, while ABC, with high efficiency and sophisticated equipments, need one time is enough .on the other hand, where are the additional trucks used to is not pointed out. Perhaps, in order to own more market and more business,  EZ receive more business from the near town or city, so it require more apparatus. Also perhaps, the new truck is used for convey day to day facilities and carry cargoes which is not relevant to collecting trash at all.

Last, the last--year survey can not present recently idea of the respondents. For one thing we have to considerate what is the 80% for? It means the respondents satisfied with the exceptional service or collecting trash. If they satisfied with the exceptional service and say nothing about EZ’S performance about collecting trash, the data is hardly to support author’s conclusion. Even the fact involves collecting trash, because the survey was made before rising fee, it is entirely perhaps that people disagree with the decision of rising fee and they are dissatisfied with the service of EZ. They may compare the fee between EZ and ABC, and choose EZ for it less money.

In sum, the argument has several flaws as discussed above. The argument could be improved by providing more evidence about the better performance of EZ and the reason of rising fees. The author fails to do that.

grace040802UID: 2348819

建议多看一下北美范文里的argument，背点好反驳的句子！这样不仅可以增加文章的字数，还可以是论证更加有利