issue17 求拍 就要考了帮忙ba

janettaoweiUID: 2591384

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.”


In this argument, the writer advocates to continue using EZ as their trash collection services provider. To support it, He point that EZ collects trash more often than ABC and EZ has ordered additional trucks. In addition, the result of the survey is cited to bolster it further. It seems to be reasonable, but a careful examination would reveal how groundless it is.
First, the comparison between EZ and ABC is dubious. Frequent collective activity and more trucks may not be an advantage of EZ Perhaps the trash there is so limit that collect them once a week would be enough to meet the need of the residents. It is even possible that collecting trash there too often would disturb the habitants live there. Furthermore, the additional trucks EZ ordered would not necessarily serve Walnut Grove town. They may be used in other towns, while the 20 trucks of ABC may be all provided to collect trash in writer’s town. In these cases, the conclusion that EZ is better than ABC is open to doubt.
Second, besides these two companies, the writer fails to take other company into consideration. Perhaps, there are many other trash companies in this area, which may provide better service and low price. If so, it would be wiser for the council there to choose these companies .Only focus on EZ and ABC, lead council neglect other companies which may bring more benefit to the certain town.
Third, the result of the survey is also weak. Because EZ has served there for ten years, residents there has no chance to experience the service of other company. If they have such chance, they would find the service of EZ is a much poorer one, and would feel unsatisfied with its performance afterwards. Without compare, the result of the survey is too haste.

In sum, the argument fails to support what it tries to claim. To make it convincing, all relevant conditions of EZ and ABC should be compared, and many other trash company should not be neglected. In addition, residents there should experience the service provided by all companies involved before the respond which one provide satisfied service. Only in this way, can the council in this town make a wise decision of their trash disposal company.