ARG17 【越洋农场】第四周慢组

xxxxzoeUID: 2200473

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: 446          TIME: 0:44:00          DATE: 2006-7-3

This letter recommends Walnut Grove Town to continue contract with EZ Disposal to ABC Waste although ABC's monthly fee is cheaper than EZ Disposal. To support this recommendation, the author points out that EZ collects trash one more time a week than ABC do and also points out that EZ has ordered additional trucks while they have 20 trucks as many as ABC. Besides, the author use a survey to support this recommendation as well. This argument rests on a series of unsubstantiated assumptions, and is therefore unpersuasive as it stands.

First of all, the author failed to support that the service of EZ is better than ABC although EZ collects trash twice a week while ABC collects only once. It is entirely possible that ABC can collect much more trash one time than EZ do this 2 times a week. And it is likely that EZ have to do 2 times a week because of their bad service. Therefore, times of collecting trash cannot lead us to get the conclusion that  Walnut Grove Town should continue to contract with EZ.

Secondly, the author failed to support that the additional trucks can help EZ to serve btter than ABC. It is possible that the totally 20 trucks of EZ are too old to collect trash more, therefore they have to order additional trucks to replace the old trucks to continue their work. Furthermore, the author did not support the evidence that these additional trucks of EZ will be put into use immediately, maybe that they are just buying them and will not use them. According to this, the additional trucks are invalid to illustrate that EZ can serve better than ABC. Without accounting for these possible factors, the author cannot convince me to draw the conclusion that Walnut Grove Town should continue contract with EZ.

Thirdly, this last year's town survey cannot help to convince me.  In this survey, author did not tell the totally number of people that surveyed. Therefore we do not know how many people finally response this survey and whether this number of respondents can illustrate the service of EZ is satisfied by majority of people live in this town. Furthermore, this survey is last year's, many thing can change a lot in two years. This survey, therefore, cannot convince me to draw the conclusion that Walnut Grove Town should continue contract with EZ.

In conclusion, to persuade me that Walnut Grove Town should continue contract with EZ. The author should provide clear evidence that EZ can serve better than ABC. To better convince me, author should make certain which one is the residents care more, the price or the trash-collect times.