argument17 【Chasing For "6" Score作文互改小组】

桃太郎UID: 2275108

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."
In this argument, the conclusion endorsed by the author is that the Walnut Grove town should continue using EZ Disposal. Adducing grounds to buttress this conclusion, the arguer maintains that EZ collects trash twice a week, while ABC collects only once.In addition, the arthor further reasons that EZ has ordered additional trucks.Moreover, the arguer cites a recent survey to manifest that EZ were 'satisfied' with EZ's erformance.This chain of reasoning, nevertheless,is flawed in three respects.
In the first place, the author fail to convince me that the quality of the services provided by the two disposal company. Althouth the EZ collects trash twice a week, yet overlooking the quality of the services the author presume that the time of collecting trash represent the better work for the citizens.It is of great possibility that despite collecting trash twice a week EZ accomplish its task with inattention or absent-mindness while ABC Waste collects only once a week yet with concentration and carefulness. This evidence accordingly can not sustain the assertion form the author.
In the first place,even thouth the quality of the services form both companys is parallel, the last year's survey is open to doubt.The arguer fails to probide any pertinent information regarding how the research is conducted and the conductor of the survey.Futhermore, we are not informed wether the survey provided only limited alternatives to mandate the respondents, who might very well prefer other options not specified in the sruvey, to give up their real inlinations, whether the survey responses were anonymous or confidential, and whether the one who are more interested in the survey will be more likely to participate in this survey and to respond.
In the third place,granted that the survey is accurate , the author does not provide proof that more trucks are needed for the Walnut Grove town. Perhaps 20 tracks are sufficient for collecting the the rubbish in the Walnut Grove town, thus ordering additional trucks is a unwise investment for EZ even a type of waste.On the contrary, 20 trucks form ABC Waste are capable of working at a considerable efficiency without any squandering in the additional trucks.
In conclusion, the argument is not compelling and not undeniable as it stands.Only with more persuasive evidences, along with more silid confirmation, can the argument be viewed as rational and verifiable.