argument17"为我所用"小组第三次作业

yt-sophiaUID: 2342654

17.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."

The argument claims that town council should continue using EZ Disposal (which has had the contract for trash collection services in Walnut Grove for the past ten years) instead of switching from it to ABC by providing several evidences, EZ collects trash twice a week while ABC collect only once and EZ have more trucks than ABC and so on, to prove EZ could provides exceptional service. However, each evidences that the author given is too unwarranted to draw the conclusion.

To begin with, the author establishes a simple causal that EZ does a better job in trash-collect because it collects trash twice a week, while ABC collects only once. Perhaps the reason why EZ need to collect twice is it can not sweep well at one time, while ABC can do it so clean that one time a week is enough. Without providing evidence that EZ can clean the town better than ABC dose, the author cannot convince me well.

In addition, the mere fact that EZ has ordered additional trucks might be explained by a variety of factors. It is possible that EZ is less efficient than ABC so it requires much more trucks to make up their weak point. Moreover, maybe buying new trucks is the really reason why EZ raises its monthly fee. If so, this evidence that the author provides is meaningless.

Furthermore, the survey's validity and representation is open to doubt. There is no evidence that the number of respondents is statistically significant or that the respondents are representative of the overall opinion of the local citizen. Maybe the responders of the survey is EZ’s employee or have a close relationship with the EZ company. If that is the case, the result of the survey is invalid. Or perhaps the respondents are new here, who do not understand EZ’s job good or not. Lacking evidence that the respondents’ reports are both truthful and meaningful, the author can not confidently draw the conclusion that EZ provides exceptional service.
  
To sum up, the author fall to substantiate his claim that town council should continue using EZ Disposal instead of switching from it to ABC, because the evidence cites here could not led the what the arguer maintains. To make this argument more appealing, the author have to offer more information with regard to the validity and representation of the survey, and provide more evidence to bolster his conclusion.