17

glxingUID: 2156425

TOPIC: 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."

提纲：
1，收集两次不代表好
2，卡车数目没有进行充分的比较
3，承诺的服务不一定兑现，调查不一定合理
4，收费为什么上调？忽略了其它选择。
The speaker thinks EZ  Waste should continue to be contracted and gives several evidences, however, close scrutiny of those evidences reveals that  the arguer has made logical mistakes.

First of all, the fact that EZ collects trash twice a week while ABC only once does not equal to that  EZ is better than ABC. It is possible that one collecting a week  is enough for the town, and  EZ is so inefficient that they have to collect twice a week.

Secondly, the arguer states that both the two companies have a fleet of 20 trucks, but further information about those trucks is not given. Perhaps the trucks of ABC are more advanced than those of  EZ . Furthermore, the arguer just claims that the EZ has ordered additional trucks, but can the new trucks be applied to the collecting work on time? And it is also possible that the additional trucks are not ordered for the Walnut Grove town rather than for other district.

Thirdly, the arguer just says that EZ  provides exceptional service but not make sure that these promises have been carried out finally.  So we can not be convinced about its exceptional service.  In addition, the argument is partly based on the survey, but it is not clear how the survey was performed, the number of respondents and the way in which the survey is made,  so we doubt whether the survey is representive of all the residents in the town. And only the survey of last year can not reveal the total performence of  EZ during the past ten years.

Last but not the least, we have no idea why the monthly fee of EZ has increased from $2000 to $2500.  Before the EZ company promises that the extra fee will be used to improve its quality of service, we  can not be convinced about  its rationality. Moreover, the arguer could not rule out the possibility that ABC is actually  better than EZ  because the evaluation of local residents, as  the survey shows, is  "satisfied"  rather than  "perfect"  or "good". The arguer fails to conclude that EZ is the best choice without considering other companies at all.

To sum up, the arguer lacks enough evidence to convince us that  EZ  is better than ABC and more qualified to this town. To strength the assertion, the arguer should provide more detailed comparison between the two companies and give a  scientific survey which can reveal that EZ 's service is better than any other companies.