argument17 快考了，求拍！

qiaoxuUID: 2195017

Argument17

题目：
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."


正文

The argument is not cogent because it base on a unconfirmed  statement . The author assert that Walnut Grove's town( WGT) council prefer ABC Waste to EZ Disposal (EZ) for the fee of DZD is $500 higher than ABC. But there are no evidence to prove the author’s assertion. In addition, the author argue it is worthy to pay more money to continue using EZ, for quality of its performance is satisfied the respondents, which ,however ,is very questionable.

First of all, the author regard that it is the high price  that  make WGT switch from EZ to ABC. It is too rash to draw this conclusion, for there may be  other reason why  WGT giving up EZ .For example Maybe the method of disposing trash that
EZ adopt is the traditional one-landfill. This method take up  vast area of land and do huge harmful to environment. While ABC is a new company using the new method to deal with trash which can recycle the trash which  will not damage environment. Consider the factor of  protecting environment  respect , choose ABC is  sensible .

However ,even if we concede the price is the decisive factor, the author's argument  that  EZ raising its fee is reasonable is suspicious. There are no evidence to indicate that EZ has not provided such service-collecting trash twice a week, in those year when the fee was  $2,000. Therefor that  EZ raise its fee is not unacceptable without provide additional performance. Moreover, even if it is necessary for EZ to raise its free for improving quality  of  performance, to pay more $500 is not always  reasonable ,may be $300 is enough. The EZ should provide more detailed information to persuade us .

Furthermore, to embrace that  EZ raising its free is reasonable  the author claims that 80  percent of respondents to last year's town survey were satisfied with EZ's performance, which have several flaws. First of all  the information about the respondents is too little. We know nothing about  how many respondents took in part this survey. May be they only accounted low percentage such as 40 percent or evrn lower for the WGT total population. We know nothing about gender of these respondent .May be most of them were male who did not do housework and lacked attention on collecting trash. In addition, the definition of  " satisfy" is obscure. By what to evaluate the satisfaction with its work, The attitude of its workers or the quality of its performance, or other factors ,which is not mentioned in the argument.

There are many other flaws existed in the author's argument, nevertheless there is no time for me to list one by one. But the main weakness mentioned above is enough to support my viewpoint.

In conclusion ,the author suggests that WGT should continue using  EZ is reasonable, not only his or her suggestion depend on an uncertain statement, but also the evidences he or she offers is flawed .

[ 本帖最后由 staralways 于 2006-4-8 19:53 编辑 ]