ARGUMENT17 [thrive小组第3次作业]

westwindyiUID: 2453478

题目：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."

提纲
1.        作者声称town council被误导并不公平。
2.        一周收两次垃圾并不能说明ez能提供更好的服务。
3.       调查的有效性值得怀疑。

In the letter to the editor of the Walnut Grove town newspaper, the author claims that Walnut Grove town should continue using EZ, although EA raised its monthly fee from 2000 to 2500. To support this argument the author reasons that EZ collects trash twice with a comparison that ABC collects only once and EZ currently has a fleet of 20 trucks and has ordered additional trucks. The author also cites a survey which shows 80 percent of the respondents agreed they were satisfied with EA's performance to substantiate that EA can provide exceptional service. The argument contains several flaws, thus it is not convincing.

Firstly, it is unfairly for the author to assert that the town council is mistaken; because the author fails to provide evidence to substantiate the fact that EA can provide better service and the author fails to establish the causal relationship between the fact that EA currently has a fleet of 20 trucks and has ordered additional trucks and exceptional service. More trucks do not mean a better service. Perhaps, ABC has much higher work efficiency, thus they do not need so many trucks, while EZ has low efficiency, so they have to buy more trucks. Therefore, without providing details of the ABC, the author can not convince me that EZ can do a better job.

Secondly, the fact that EZ collects trash twice a week lends no support to this argument, for the author fails to establish a causal relationship between the times that the company collects trash and a better service. Perhaps, ABC collects trash much cleaner than EZ does; a second time collection is not necessary. Perhaps, the trucks ABC use is superior to the trucks EZ uses; they can load as much as twice EZ’s trucks load. Therefore, the author can not convince me the fact EZ collects trash twice a week substantiates his or her argument and the reasoning is doubtful.

Further more, the survey cited is open to doubt for the author does not provide particular of the survey. For example, the author fails to tell us how many people have taken part in the survey and the percentage of the respondents. Can the respondents be representative? And, do the respondents complete the survey honestly? Without listing the details of the survey, the result of the survey lacks credibility, thus is unconvincing.

To sum up, the argument is not persuasive, thus does not convince me. To strength the argument that Walnut Grove town should continue using EZ, the author must provide more details of the survey and the company ABC.

[ 本帖最后由 westwindyi 于 2008-2-6 20:25 编辑 ]