argument17 51互助小组第4次作业 by confused

boylittleUID: 2304303

By making a contrast between two companies of collecting trash in Walnut Grove just on some information such as their frequencies of serving, numbers of their trucks and a survey of the satisfaction with one EZ Disposal, the advice for continuously using EZ seems logical, however, not thoroughly reasonable after a deeply thinking.

Firstly, it is unfair to conclude based on EZ's service frequency of twice a week, on the contrast of ABC's once a week, and the order of more trucks that EZ will give a better service to the town. The more important factors to judge the ability of collecting trash are whether it can clear the landfill effectively and thoroughly, not the tucks it has or the times it service one week. Perhaps the residents discard garbage not so much that once a week of clearance is enough. Moreover, perhaps ABC's trucks, even if the number of which is same as EZ's, have more advanced machines in the procession of collection, which can clear the rubbish more efficiently and  leave the dustheap cleaner. Without ruling out such possibilities, the author can not justifiably conclude that EZ will do a better job than ABC.

Secondly, the arguer provides no evidence that the last year's town survey on the satisfaction with EZ’s performance is statistically reliable. Lacking such evidence, it is entirely possible that people preferred EZ were more willing to respond to the survey than other people were. Thus, without giving evidence that all of the persons surveyed answered the questionnaire, the conclusion that EZ supplied exceptional service last year is unconvincing.

Finally, the council's decision to switching from EZ to ABC may not just because ABC's fee is lower than EZ. It is quite possible; for example, that the reason that ABC can keep its fee constant is that it develops its technology of wastrel recycle, which of course is beneficial for the environment of the town, so that it can get more valuable things and then reduce the cost. If this is the case, the council chose ABC for the long-term benefits of the residents rather than for the fewer fees they would pay.

In sum, without providing the details of the two and other disposal companies (if there are), the author could not justify the advice that the council should continue to using EZ instead of switching to ABC.