Argument17 [越洋农场站队]快组第5周作业 monkeycola

monkeycolaUID: 2206472

17The 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."

用时一个多小时 写加分析，狂汗:lol！主要是实验室太吵，分散注意力！;P
字数：468
分析：这篇A比较简单，驳斥点很容易就看出来了，但是我语言组织的能力还需要加强

In this argument,the arguer points out that although EZ which provides trash collection services in
WG for ten years recently raised its monthly fee,whereas its competitor ABC still keep the price,the Walnut Grove(WG)’s town council should continue to use EZ. In order to support his or her conclusion, the arguer cites that EZ collects trash twice a week,while ABC collects once a week.And EZ currently has the same trucks as ABC,but it has ordered additional trucks.In addition,the arguer mentioned according to the survey most of the respondents were satisfied with EZ’s performance.This argument rests on a series of unsubstantiated assumptions,ans is therefore
unpersuasive as it stands.

First of all,it seems that EZ collects trash twice a week is better than ABC which collects trash once a week.However,the arguer neglects the fact that if the trash can be clearly collected once a week,it is not necessary to collect twice a week which is an obvious waste.In short, the arguer provide no specific data about the collection of the trash,it is unfair to assume that EZ collect trach better than ABC.

In addition, the arguer unfairly assumes that EZ will provide exceptional service because it has ordered additional trucks. Even EZ ordered additional trucks which will own more trucks than ABC, the arguer cannot grant that the additional trucks will be used to collect trash.It is quite possible that EZ use there additional trucks to collect trash of anther city where EZ expands its new company,or perhaps EZ use these trucks to transport something else instead of collecting trash,Without ruling out other possible reasons of ordering additional trucks,the arguer cannot convince us that EZ will provide additional services.
Finally,the arguer provides no evidence that the survey ‘s respondents are representative of the overall groups of people who are satisfied with EZ’s performance.Lacking such evidence,it is entirely possible that people who are satisfied with the performance of EZ are willing to respond  to the survey than other people who are not satisfied with.Without better evidence that the survey is statistically reliable the arguer cannot rely it to draw any firm conclusion that the residents are satisfied with EZ’s performance.And in addition,the arguer mentioned that EZ has raised its monthly fee,the arguer provides nothing that the residents are willing to pay the extra fee to collect trash.It is possible that the residents are all incline to swith to ABC which keep the price.
  
In sum,the argument is not well reasoning and lucks credibility because the evidence cited in the analysis does not lead to strongly support to the arguer maintains.To make the argument more convincing,the arguer would have to provide more evidence that Since EZ raised the fee of trash collection,it will provide better service.Additionly,it would be essential for the arguer to make an effective and representative survey to support the conclusion.