argument17 提纲[Transcend小组]第一次作业

yangxq1001UID: 203663

argument 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 is not thoroughly well-reasoned. The reason why Walnut Grove should  continue using EZ is not convictive.

The arguer says EZ collects trash twice a week while ABC only once. The arguer does not provide any evidence to prove the external once is necessary.  

Additional, although EZ has ordered additional trucks, there does not exist any saying or promises that the additional trucks will be used for trash collection services in Walnut Grove. This company may expand their areas.

Moreover, although 80 percent of respondents satisfied with EZ's performance, 20 percent of respondents still unsatisfied with its service. Maybe ABC could provide excellent performance.

Finally, the arguer does not show any evidence to explain that the external $500 a month is worthy for EZ Disposal.

[ 本帖最后由 yangxq1001 于 2007-3-3 22:16 编辑 ]