Argument17--Thrive小组第3次作业...春节特刊！欢迎榴莲

z12y12l12UID: 2452277

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."

Walnut Grove's town council recently advocated switching their trash collection services from EZ Disposal to ABC Waste. Yet the author argues in a letter that Walnut Grove council should continue the contract with EZ. The reason supporting the arguer's conclusion is various from the truth that EZ collect trash twice a week, to the fact that in last year's town survey 80 percent of respondents were satisfied with EZ's performance. The author's statement seems to be well supported and reasonable, nevertheless, the argument suffers from several crucial fallacies and logical faults.

A major problem with this argument is that the author failed to provide us a convincing survey report that could persuade us to believe that EZ provides exceptional service. The last year's town survey could not imply anything: It is perfectly possible that the respondents to the survey are too little to represent all residents' opinion about EZ. Thus, If the author could not show any detail of the survey, this survey can not be the evidence for that the EZ is doing a superior job in Walnut Grove. Even these respondents are representative of overall population in Walnut Grove; it is entirely possible that the respondents will be more satisfied with ABC.

Another flaw that weakened the argument is that the author failed to provide any persuasive evidence showing that EZ is more effective in collecting trash. The fact, that EZ collects trash one more time then ABC per week, does not suggest that EZ is a better trash collecting firm than ABC. It could be that EZ collects one third of the trash in this town every time, and ABC collect all. This actually indicates that the time of collection every week is not the case affecting effectiveness of the collection.

Before I come to my conclusion, it is necessary to point out that the author also provided incomplete information about the number of trucks. He only mentioned that EZ ordered additional trucks, however, he did not give us any information about ABC. There is a possibility that in fact ABC ordered more new trucks than EZ. The author's assumption, that ABC is not ordering any additional trucks, is false.

To sum up, since the author could not provide any convincing evidence to support his conclusion, the council should stick with their original plan to switch the contract from EZ to ABC. And the author, should collect persuasive evidence, such as a more convincing survey report, to support his suggestion.

413 words
啊，大家春节快乐啊！
这篇自我感觉比较良好，欢迎高手在过节之余来鄙视以下我。谢谢！！
榴莲必回拍！

提纲:
1. The survey is not persuasive because the no evidence was provide that respondents are representitive of overall population.
2. The times of collection every week does not suggest the quality of the trash collection service.
3. A incomplete information about ordering new trucks.

[ 本帖最后由 z12y12l12 于 2008-2-6 01:43 编辑 ]