argument 17 为我所用小组第三次作业

guoshishuoUID: 2467577

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: 510        TIME: 00:40:00          DATE: 2008-3-25 11:11:27

The author of this argument concludes that they should still use EZ due to the reasons that EZ collects trash twice a week , which is more than ABC. She also indicates that EZ has ordered more trucks and cites a survey to show the satisfaction of people with EZ. However, close scrutiny of the argument, I find several logical flaws.
To begin with, the mere fact that EZ collects trash twice a week while ABC collects only once is scant evidence that EZ is better than ABC. It is entirely possible that the amount of trash ABC collects once is equal to or even much more than those EZ collects. Thus, twice a week seems wasteful, and maybe that is the reason why EZ raises its fee from $2,000 to $2,500 because twice a week means more labor and gas costs. If this is the case, using EZ is obviously not a good choice.
Secondly, the fact that EZ has ordered additional trucks does not necessarily indicate that it will offer a better service. If collecting trash twice a week has been a kind of waste, then adding trucks will be further wasteful, which demands more cost . What's more, the author overlooks the possibility that actually these trucks are not used for trash collecting in Walnut Grove's town. Maybe EZ has broaden its business to other areas, and these trucks are used to collect trash in a neighbor town.  Thus, the adding of trucks of EZ does not affect the the trash collecting in the town at all. Even if the trucks are used in the town, it may become a waste.
Thirdly, the author has cited a survey that 80 respondents agreed that they were satisfied with the performance of EZ, which is dubious. She does not offer the information about how many people were included in the survey, and how many of them responded to the survey. If the number is not large enough , it cannot represent the true preference of people in town. And it is also possible that those who are satisfied with EZ are more inclined to answer the survey. Also, because the town has used EZ for ten years, people do not know ABC very well and thus choose EZ.
What's more, the argument suffers from an either-or reasoning. What if there exists another trash collecting company whose service is even better and charges less, then it will probably be a better choice rather than the two that has been mentioned. It would be too hasty to implement the author's suggestion without exploring this possible scenario.
In conclusion, the argument relies on certain doubtful assumptions which render it unconvincing. To better support the recommendation, the author should provide clearer evidence that collecting trash twice a week is actually better than once, and EZ has a better efficiency than ABC. Also, she should substantiate that the extra fee EZ charges is worthy compared to its performance and there is no better choice of trash companies which would provide a better service as well as lower fees.