【喜洋洋杀G大队】wu-intrepi,第二次作业

wu-intrepidUID: 2659758

迟了很久，因为自己必须先把套路弄清楚，所以拖到今天才做前天的作业，汗颜啊..落下的我会慢慢补上的...
argument17 issue会尽快写好         欢迎拍死我;P


The author of this argument claims that we should keep using EZ which provides trash collection services more frequently, and which have more trucks in the future instead of ABC. However, this conclusion that seems obvious true cannot accept a hardly test. The main hypothesis to support this argument is that more frequency and trucks is amount to high quality which I consider illogical.

To begin with, the author commits a fallacy of oversimplifying the relation between frequency and quality in assuming that frequency means hardworking. Unfortunately, the author neglect other possibility such as the need of this town. Suppose the trash of this town only need one collection per week by a company with high efficiency. Why EC have to collect twice a week? Is that mean by the shackle of lower efficiency EC cannot compete with ABC so that they must do collection more frequently? If so, it is really a largely a waste of taxpayer's dollars to use EC for ABC is cheaper. Besides, the author did not check the government's financial condition. If we will be left with a budget deficit, why do not we choose a cheaper one?

Secondly, the author hastily assumes that ordered additional trucks enable EC to finish works more efficient. However, it is possible that there is no causal relation. The author failed to provide evidences to illustrate that more truck will used to collect trash for Walnut Grove's town. Maybe EC cannot compete with ABC in this town so that they try to develop business in other towns and that is why they order additional truck. For that matter, Walnut Grove's town may assume the cost of the serving for other towns. This unjustifiable choice is unfair to all the taxpayers. Anther possibility is that EC cannot provide service as efficient as ABC,  and the only method for EC to decrease frequency is use more trucks to finish the mission. So the government should investigate the reason and the use of the additional trucks before they make the decision.

Finally, the author only provide the percentage of respondents, yet neglect the base amount. We can easily imagine that most people hate the service provided from EC so that think it scorn to response to the investigation for EC, whereas they are all satisfy with ABC. So a cogent statistics should including the percentage of people who satisfy with these two different company and the  accurate number of participants.

In sum, from aforementioned analysis, we can safely conclude that the author's argument is unpersuasive. We all should recognize that decisions like this are closely related to our city, our people and our future. Why we squander some money which could have been applied toward more immediate social problem? So a comprehensive investigation is needed. Unless the author offer more evidences to support his argument and exclude possibilities I mentioned, then I will render his argument reasonable.