Argument17--Thrive小组第3次作业

sbsUID: 2453499

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."
字数：612         

In this letter, the arguer claims that the Walnut Grove(WG)'s town council should continues using EZ Disposal for trash collection service instead of ABC. To strengthen the conclusion, the arguer points out that EZ collect trash more times than ABC and that EZ has ordered additional trucks. In addition, the arguer provides the evidence that a survey showing that 80% of respondents agreed that they were 'satisfied' with EZ's performance. However, the perspective, be it seemingly reasonable at the first glance, is unconvincing for several critical flaws.

To begin with, a threshold problem with the argument involves the statistical reliability of the survey. The arguer provides no evidence that the number of respondents is statistically significant or that the respondent were representative of all the citizens in WG in general. On one hand, the number 80% is far too vague because we do not know the basic amount of people who participate in this survey. It is likely that only a very small amount of residents living in WG, for instance, twenty people think EZ's performance was fine last year. On the other hand, it is entirely possible that the people who are in favor of EZ only know this trash collection company since EZ had been serving the WG town for the last 10 years. Without comparison, they have to admit that EZ were 'satisfied'. It is possible that they will feel ABC is even better than EZ in performance. Lacking information about size of the survey's sample and the randomness, the arguer cannot make a convincing argument based on that survey.

What's more, the arguer unfairly assumes that EZ's working performance is superior to ABC's, base on the facts that EZ collect trash one more time than ABC. Perhaps it is just because EZ is not efficient as ABC is, therefore EZ needs more times than ABC to collect the trash. Moreover, perhaps the scopes ABC covers is wider than EZ, such as every area of WG's town whereas EZ only covers the residence districts , which is only a small part of the town. Without ruling out such possibilities, the arguer cannot justifiably conclude that EZ's working performance is beyond to ABC's.

Last but not the least, the arguer fails to establish a causal relationship between the number of trucks and the performance of the trash collection company, since the former one is not a good indication of the latter one. Besides the size of the company, it is probably that people concern the quality and serve attitude much more. Even if the amount of trucks is an important factors to evaluate the performance of the trash collection company, the arguer does not mention a word whether ABC has ordered additional truck. It is possible that ABC has ordered more truck than EZ. Besides, the arguer does not state when will the EZ’s ordered truck arrive, the later the arrival time is, the less credibility this factor should be. Hence, I cannot be convinced to what the arguer cites.

To sum up, the argument is neither sound nor persuasive as it stands. Not only does it ignores certain significant concerns, but also cites in the analysis the evidence and survey, which lack of credibility to what the arguer claims. To make the argument more convincing, the arguer must present more facts that EZ does provides better service than ABC. To bolster the argument, the arguer would have to produce more specific evidence concerning the size and the respondents of the survey , and the exact time when EZ’s ordered truck will arrive. If the argument includes the given factors discussed above, it would have been more thorough and adequate.

已自我修改过。谢谢！


[ 本帖最后由 sbs 于 2008-2-10 08:12 编辑 ]

z12y12l12UID: 2452277

In this letter, the arguerclaims that the Walnut Grove(WG)'s town council should continues using(their contract with，貌似不是use的关系)EZ Disposal for trash collection service instead of (switching to) ABC. To strengthenthe conclusion, the arguer points out that EZ collect trash more timesthan ABC and that EZ has ordered additional trucks. In addition, thearguer provides the evidence that a survey showing that 80% ofrespondents agreed that they were 'satisfied' with EZ's performance.However, the perspective, be it seemingly reasonable at the firstglance, is unconvincing for several critical flaws.

To begin with, a thresholdproblem with the argument involves the statistical reliability of thesurvey. The arguer provides no evidence that the number of respondentsis statistically significant or that the respondent were representativeof all the citizens in WG in general. On (the) one hand, the number 80% isfar too vague because we do not know the basic amount of people whoparticipate in this survey. It is likely that only a very small amountof residents living in WG, for instance, twenty people think EZ'sperformance was fine last year. On the other hand, it is entirelypossible that the people who are in favor of EZ only know this trashcollection company since EZ had been serving the WG town for the last10 years. Without comparison, they have to admit that EZ were'satisfied'. It is possible that they will feel ABC is(to be) even better thanEZ in performance. Lacking information about size of the survey'ssample and the randomness, the arguer cannot make a convincing argumentbased on that survey.

What's more, the arguerunfairly assumes that EZ's working performance is superior to ABC's,base on the facts that EZ collect trash one more time than ABC. Perhapsit is just because EZ is not efficient as ABC is, therefore EZ needsmore times than ABC to collect the trash. Moreover, perhaps the scopesABC covers is wider than EZ, such as every area of WG's town whereas EZonly covers the residence districts , which is only a small part of thetown(How did you know?). Without ruling out such possibilities, the arguer cannotjustifiably conclude that EZ's working performance is beyond to ABC's.

Last but not the least, thearguer fails to establish a causal relationship between the number oftrucks and the performance of the trash collection company, since theformer one is not a good indication of the latter one. Besides the sizeof the company, it is probably that people concern the quality andserve attitude much more. Even if the amount of trucks is an importantfactors to evaluate the performance of the trash collection company,the arguer does not mention a word whether ABC has ordered additionaltruck(s). It is possible that ABC has ordered more truck than EZ. Besides,the arguer does not state when will the EZ’s ordered truck arrive, thelater the arrival time is, the less credibility this factor should be.Hence, I cannot be convinced to what the arguer cites.

To sum up, the argument isneither sound nor persuasive as it stands. Not only does it ignorescertain significant concerns, but also cites in the analysis theevidence and survey, which lack of credibility to what the arguerclaims. To make the argument more convincing, the arguer must presentmore facts that EZ does provides better service than ABC. To bolsterthe argument, the arguer would have to produce more specific evidenceconcerning the size and the respondents of the survey , and the exacttime when EZ’s ordered truck will arrive. If the argument includes thegiven factors discussed above, it would have been more thorough andadequate.(过长了...你考试有能打完么?)

基本没什么问题了，注意一些句型还要改一改以免雷同。


[ 本帖最后由 z12y12l12 于 2008-2-12 09:56 编辑 ]