Argument17: 【越洋农场战队】作文第五周，蝌蚪！

koochenUID: 2112859

agument17：
The author of this letter recommends that the town council should continue to employ EZ’s services despite their fee raising from $2000 to $2500 in a moth. To substantiate this recommendation, the author cites several evidences as follow: (1) EZ collects trash two times a week, in contrast, ABC provides only one time; (2) EZ has ordered additional trucks, and the trucks they are now owned are coincident; (3) a survey that 80 percent of respondents satisfy EZ’s services. With close scrutiny of these evidences, none of them could lend credible support to the recommendation.

To begin with, the author assumes that the more times the company collects trash in a week, the better service this company provides. However, the author provide no detailed evidences to bolster this correlations between them. Maybe there is no necessary to clean trash twice a week, and once is enough. Therefore, service provided by EZ is superfluous and this is squandering resources. Without considering and ruling out these cases, the author could not draw any convincing conclusion from it.

Second, from the ordered other 20 trucks, the author conclude that EZ could provide better services than that of ABC. There may be to some extent a positive correlation between the number of trucks and the quality of services. But a mere positive correlation between them does not necessarily prove a causal relationship. In addition, it is entirely possible that EZ should have collects trash in two cities while ABC service only one city. Thus the trucks used in Walnut Grove town may be more less than ten. And even maybe only five trucks is necessary for this city. If these are the cases, the author’s recommendation are highly suspect.

Third, there are some problems with the survey this author cites. There is not any information about those who involves in this survey. The ideas of those who are surveyed may be not representative of the whole town’s people in general. For instance, residents who are surveyed may be those who most satisfy ABC’s service, but only accounts for a little percent of the whole residents. Therefore, the recommendation is unwarranted by this problematic survey.

In sum, this recommendation is ill-conceived and logically flawed. To better bolster the suggestion, the author must provide other evidence that: (1) there is necessary to collect trash twice a week; (2) all the trucks of EZ will put into use in Walnut Grove town and also there need all these trucks; (3) the surveyed people could represent the residents in general.