argument17

nortromUID: 2591367

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.”

正文
The author claims that the town council is mistaken for making the decision to switch trash collection services from EZ Disposal to ABC Waste. To support his argument, the author cites various evidence that EZ has more advantages than the latter. Additionally, he quotes the respondents to a survey to show that people are satisfied with the service of EZ. However, this argument is logically flawed in several critical respects.

First of all, the author unfairly assumes that EZ will provide a better service due to the mere fact that it collects trash twice a week. Perhaps there is not so much trash in this town that collecting it once a week is enough. And it lacks evidence that how efficiently does EZ’s service. It is entirely possible that ABC can treat even more trash than EZ though they collect it once a week. Without ruling out these factors, the author cannot assume that EZ provides a better service.

Secondly, the fact that EZ’s having ordered additional trucks is not reasonable enough to judge that it has a more strong ability for treatment. There is no evidence that the newly ordered trucs will be enrolled into those for trash treatment, maybe they will utilize them in other services. Even if all these trucks are available for trash treatment, we are not sure if they have the same capacity in carrying trash as those in ABC. Perhaps trucks in ABC are more powerful and more efficient though lack in number.

Finally, the respondents to the service dose not provide enough information thus making it not so persuasive. Firstly, we do not know whether a 80 percent of satisfaction is acceptable. Obviouly, there are at least 20 percent of people who have complaints about EZ’s service. Secondly, EZ has dominated the local trash market for the past ten years. People have already been used to it and thus they have little complaints. But if we let ABC work for several months in these area, there is a great chance that people will love the new company.

In sum, the argument is logically flawed and therefore unconvincing as it satnds. To strengthen it the author should provide better evidence that EZ works more efficiently than ABC, EZ has a more strong ability in trash treatment and people will choose EZ even after they have compared it with ABC. To better assess the argumnet, I also need to know the living habits of people in this area, and more details about the survey.

slipingUID: 2584903

The author claims that the town council is mistaken for making the decision to switch trash collection services from EZ Disposal to ABC Waste. To support his argument, the author cites various evidence that EZ has more advantages than the latter. Additionally, he quotes the respondents to a survey to show that people are satisfied with the service of EZ. However, this argument is logically flawed in several critical respects.

First of all, the author unfairly assumes that EZ will provide a better service due to the mere fact that it collects trash twice a week. Perhaps there is not so much trash in this town that collecting it once a week is enough. And it lacks evidence that how efficiently does EZ’s service. It is entirely possible that ABC can treat even more trash than EZ though they collect it once a week. Without ruling out these factors, the author cannot assume that EZ provides a better service.

Secondly, the fact that EZ’s having ordered additional trucks is not reasonable enough to judge that it has a more strong ability for treatment. There is no evidence that the newly ordered trucs will be enrolled into those for trash treatment, maybe they will utilize them in other services. Even if all these trucks are available for trash treatment, we are not sure if they have the same capacity in carrying trash as those in ABC. Perhaps trucks in ABC are more powerful and more efficient though lack in number.

Finally, the respondents to the service dose not provide enough information thus making it not so persuasive. Firstly, we do not know whether a 80 percent of satisfaction is acceptable. Obviously, there are at least 20 percent of people who have complaints about EZ’s service. Secondly, EZ has dominated the local trash market for the past ten years. People have already been used to it and thus they have little complaints. But if we let ABC work for several months in these area, there is a great chance that people will love the new company.

In sum, the argument is logically flawed and therefore unconvincing as it stands. To strengthen it the author should provide better evidence that EZ works more efficiently than ABC, EZ has a more strong ability in trash treatment and people will choose EZ even after they have compared it with ABC. To better assess the argumnet, I also need to know the living habits of people in this area, and more details about the survey.

这篇文章有些理由我觉得说服力不强 你可以再想想 虽然是很通顺