argument17 【8月上海组】--换垃圾收集商--Leave

chentian_nkUID: 2340104

Argument17   ABC周两次收垃圾+ 新车+ 居民满意=不用换  
In this letter, the author recommends continuing using EZ instead of switching to ABC. To bolster his claims, he points out that (1)EZ collects trash twice a week while ABC collects only once and (2)EZ has ordered additional tracks and (3) the resident here are satisfied with EZ' s performance according to the survey. At first glance the argument appears to be somewhat plausible, however, further reflecting reveals that the line of reasoning is unconvincing for a couple of reasons.

To begin with, the necessity that WG needs trash collecting twice a week is open to doubt. The letter contains no evidence to support it. Perhaps WG is a so small town that only once a week of trash collection is enough. For that matter, spending $500 more to purchase once more collecting is not a good recommendation.

In addition, the additional tracks ordered by EZ does not lead to strong support that EZ is better than ABC. Perhaps the tracks ordered are not used in this area. Without more information, the author can not take this evidence to sustain his recommendation.

Last but not the least, the validity of the survey is open to doubt. The author fails to point out the portion of the people who actually responded the survey. The smaller the portion is, the less reliable the results are. Meanwhile, the author does not indicate how many people are surveyed. Perhaps the number was much smaller than the local population. Without more information, we can not assume that the respondents' views are necessary representative of the view of the vast majority. Even granted that most residents are satisfied with EZ' s performance, the author fails to rule out the possibility that they will be more satisfied with ABC's performance. For that matter, with lower price, the residents may be likely to shift to ABC.

In sum, the argument is logically flawed and therefore not convincing as it stands. To strength it, the author must either modify his recommendation or offer better evidence to support what he claims.