Argument17 【0906G ANap Hand 作文互改小组】第10次作业 by zju-jenny 有点难

jenny11235UID: 2585428

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: 385          TIME: 00:50:00          DATE: 2009-1-15 20:48:25

The author of this letter, who suggested keeping employing EZ for trash collection, listed three well-present reasons, but not well-reasoned ones.

Firstly, let's rethink the survey included in the letter. As the author, neglecting the total number of sample, the background of the survey, just through providing us a percent number of respondents may hardly indicate the superior performance of EZ. It is most likely that the number of respondents is just a piece of cake, compared with the whole number of people, taking part in the survey. If the case is true, then can you still say the respondents present the most of the surveyed? Additionally, we cannot help doubting the time when the survey is taken. Considering that it is taken last year when the service may be provided as huge differently as this year, so only based on the performance of last year cannot illustrate anything at all.

Furthermore, the second advantage, EZ had order extra trucks, also lack persuasion. Without informing the usage of the trucks, we cannot hastily believe that they are used for trash collection. EZ Company has full right to use them in other way, such as transportation. Only weighing the number of trucks the two companies have and not informed the usage of new trunks the EZ Company want to do, we can see nothing in advantage of EZ Company.

Lastly, the author simply compare the price changes  that the two companies made, not considering the other factors that still play an important role in the process in which the  government made the choice. For example, the author didn't rethink the question: Is the 2500$ charged by EZ as reasonable as it sounds? There is a possibility that the charge increase made by EZ is a completely illegal price pushing behavior. As EZ had made contrast with Walnut Grove for ten years, he thought the government would not employ other companies even he made a price pushing, which is now demonstrated as a wrong in grain.

To sum, the letter still exists many defects, inducing a unconvincing conclusion. The author should give us more detailed information of the survey for consideration as the above suggested. And he must tell the usage of the new tracks and the reason why EZ increase his charge to polish his argument.