Argument17 [天道酬勤小组]第九次作业 by yaoqian0424,欢迎互拍

yaoqian0424UID: 2323517

TOPIC: ARGUMENT17 - 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: 560          TIME: 00:45:00          DATE: 2007-7-18 下午 10:20:01

The author rests on a series evidence to prove that the service provided by EZ Disposal (EZ) is superior over that of another candidate ABC Waste(ABC) in order to recommend that  Walnut Grove's town council should continue to sign contract with EZ to collect the trash of the town. The reasoning of this argument seems tempting for the first blush, however, it relies on insufficient evidence and is not convincing as it stands.

First of all, the author fails to provide compelling evidence to figure out the real reason for local council to swift from EZ to ABC for trash collection. The rise in monthly fee of EZ may not be the only and direct cause for council to break the contract with EZ. It is entirely possible that the method of EZ to collect garbage is not environmental, which may lead to the potential hazard to the balance of ecosystem in WG and ultimately drive the council to terminate the continue contract with EZ. Or perhaps the ever decreasing efficiency of EZ makes it unworthy, in some officials’ eyes, to pay relevant fee to EZ any longer. Failing to rule out foregoing alternatives, the author can not convince us that the local council's decision to switching for another company is wrong.

Secondly, the author cites the comparison that EZ collects trash twice a week while ABC collect only once to imply that it is worthwhile to choose EZ for its heavy workloads. However, the author provides no information about the necessity for the additional collection offered by EZ, neither the efficiency of the two companies. Maybe it is unnecessary to collect trash twice a week and once a week is sufficient to address the needs of WG, in other words, the additional collection may come out to be a waste of money. Besides, it might also the case that the efficiency of ABC exceeds that of EZ that only one collection exerts by ABE amounts to two of EZ. Simply put, without sufficient evidence to prove the necessity of additional collection as well as the efficiency of the two companies, it is unfair to view EZ as more superb than ABC in garbage collection.

There is another fallacy that weakens the logic of this argument. That is whether the newly ordered trucks of EZ would be actually helpful for their collection work in WG. Perhaps the new trucks may be transported to the affiliated company of EZ which is out of the range of WG. Thus these trucks can not be used to facilitate the trash collection in WG. Or perhaps the new trucks would be utilized to other business such as preserving the tools and equipments of company, selling the commodity produced by EZ and so force, without any benefits for trash collection. So the mere fact that EZ ordered more trucks proves little in itself the more effectiveness of EZ.

Finally, the survey provided by author lacks credibility. The author can not provide any evidence to lend credence to support that the survey's sample is sufficient in size and representative the overall residents in WG. If the total amount of respondents is quite small, it is easy to lead to the partial and unreliable results. Besides, we have to take into account the fact that during the past ten years the residents in WG only have experienced the service of EZ without any other competitors. Thus lacking the contrast with other company, the residents can not get the real sense regarding the performance of EZ. So their evaluation released by the survey may untenable.

In final analysis, the author’s recommendation is not substantially supported and not convincing as it stands. To bolster his assertion, the author should investigate the actual reason for WG council to swift from EZ to ABC and provide detailed information about the comparison between EZ and ABC in regard to the real efficiency in trash collection. Furthermore the author should rely on more objective and persuasive survey as to the attitudes of residents towards the EZ’s performance.