aru17 for practise group

beibeiyu200307UID: 2223106

ARGU 17 TIME 45MINS  WORDS 491

The editor of the Walnut Grove town paper recommends that the town should continue using EZ to collects trash .To support the argument the arguer cites some facts, statistic substance and a survey .Nevertheless , the evidence is not persuasive to bolster the recommendation by careful scrutiny.

First of all, relying on the assumption that  the more times trash is collected each week the better the service is,the arguer asserts that EZ is  better than ABC waste, which is unpersuasive since collecting trash twice a week might not necessary for Walnut Grove. perhaps the local residents is not too many and collecting trash once a week is enough . Besides , by using once a week style the local government can save money that is unnecessarily spent on the additional collection.Or perhaps , the local financial condition is very tight and government cannot spare more money to pay for higher fee for trash collection, therefore they have no other feasible choice except using ABC waste for it reasonable price.

Moveover,the cited fact that EZ has ordered additional trucks complete nothing to bolster the recommendation of choosing EZ. firstly added trucks do not mean EZ will provides better qualified service,It is possible that 20 trucks are enough to collect local trash and the additional ones will be a waste of money. Or perhaps comparing with EZ , ABC added more trucks that might have higher capacity than EZ's machines.besides, ABC might also recruit more experience workers to operate those trucks. without ruling out those possibilities, there is no evidence to deny that ABC cannot provides better and cheaper service than EZ.

Finally , to support the assertion the author cites a survey , which is too vague and one sided to be meaningful and persuasive.firstly, the survey only mentions respondents' satisfaction lever to EZ and donot provide the people's response to ABC , which is meaningless to make a comparison.perhaps , a higher portion of  respondents are satisfy with ABC's job.Besides, the survey itself is problematic in several ways, without clear evidence , it is possible that people who responsed to survey have only in contact with EZ and cannot compare is service with other competitors . Perhaps, residents who are not satisfied with EZ are not chosen in the survey who is supported by EZ, or perhaps , the survey was only concluded a little part of locals , therefore can not represent the general attitude toward the trash collecting service from EZ. without ruling out those alternative reasons , it is unfair to conclude EZ is better than ABC or other companies, thereby should be chosen.

In the final analysis, neither the survey about satisfaction lever nor the comparison between the operation situations of the two trash collection companies be credible and meaningful to bolster the arguer's recommendation. To be more reasonable and fair, the editor should provide more concrete evidence about local economic conditions and people's response to ABC's service .