argument17 [SJTU-ETB6 10G] 第一次作业

dacgileUID: 2367722

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: 323          TIME: 00:30:00          DATE: 2007-8-1 15:51:49

提纲：
       1。回收次数
       2。添加卡车
       3。民众调查


By citing several evidences comparing EZ with ABC, the author recommends that they should continue using EZ. Close scrutiny of the argument, however, revels that it is logically flawed in some critical respects, which render it unconvincing as it stands.

To begin with, the times of collecting trash doesn't lend strong enough support to the service quality. Perhaps the service quality of EZ is bad, in other words, although it collects trash twice a week, it is possible that each time when it is collecting it cannot make sure the trash site is totally cleared. But ABC may do better, that is to say, the only once collecting in a week can guarantee that it can do much better than EZ who does the work twice.

Furthermore, the quantity of cars lends nothing useful to bolster that EZ is better than ABC. It is totally possible that the newly-ordered trucks are not going to be used in the service of collecting WG's trash. Also perhaps the effectiveness of EZ is far lower than that of ABC considering the situation that although EZ has got 20 more new trucks. Without ruling out these alternatives, the evidence is questionable.

Last but not least, the survey of inhabitants could not demonstrate that there is satisfaction with EZ. First, the number of people being surveyed is not mentioned, perhaps it is far more bigger than the respondents, that is to say, the respondents only constitute a small proportion of the people surveyed, in this sense, the result is open to question. Second, even if the survey itself is in fact credible, the result cannot support that they would continue to choose EZ in condition of providing other good companies.

To sum up, the argument is unpersuasive. To buttress the argument, the author should account for the details mentioned above, like the service quality of both the companies and the preference of the people living in the town.

[ 本帖最后由 dacgile 于 2007-8-1 18:19 编辑 ]