[a习作temp] argument17 3月高频题欢迎互拍 [复制链接]

cavana
UID: 2178782

初级会员

Rank: 3 Rank: 3

声望: 0
寄托币: 482
注册时间: 2006-1-22
精华: 0
帖子: 2

电梯直达

楼主

发表于 2006-2-22 19:37:35 |只看该作者 |倒序浏览

TOPIC: 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."
WORDS: 417 TIME: 0:29:33 DATE: 2006-2-22

The argument that council should still choose EZ Disposal, for its better and exceptional service, although its monthly fee has rise from $2,000 to $2,500, seems sounding and convincing at the first glance. However, there are many flaws and foibles in it.

First, the fact that EZ collects trash twice a week contrary to the ABC has only once ,can not be a strong evidence to show that EZ provide a better service. The number of times to collect trash can not show the quality of their job. Maybe the ABC can use half of the time used by EZ to clean all the trash from the streets, so it might be the low efficiency of EZ that make EZ have to work twice to finish its missions.

Second, the arguer points out that the EZ currently has ordered additional trucks. However, the number of trucks can not be the proof to show EZ provide better service either. As the arguer says, the EZ has already work for 10 years at least, so the trucks they use today might be old and broken enough to be desert. The new trucks EZ orders might used to take place of the old ones, not to improve the power of the trash collection services. On the other side, the EZ has just enhanced its monthly fee, and maybe the leadership of EZ wants to use these fee to their new trucks. If in that case, it is unreasonable to ask customers to pay the extra fee for the update of their device.

Third, the arguer's last reason to support his conclusion is that, 80 percent of respondents to last year's town survey agreed that they were satisfied with EZ's performance. Nevertheless, as we know, the EZ has already served for Walnut Grove's town for 10 years, so the survey should ask the respondents about the whole satisfactory about the service provided by EZ in the past 10 years. More over, in the past 10 years, the people in Walnut Grove's town have just be served by EZ, so how can they know which one is better without a comparison between the two companies.

After pointing out so many flaws in the argument, now we can say that , the reasons the arguer use to support his conclusion that EZ provides better service than ABC, can not be relied on. The arguer needs more convincing survey and more detailed report about the quality of the EZ and ABC to support his conclusion.

[ 本帖最后由 cavana 于 2006-2-22 19:39 编辑 ]