argument17 [戮力同心]小组 第一次作业 by 最坚强的泡沫

最坚强的泡沫UID: 2245686

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."

In this argument, the arguer recommends that Walnut Grove(WG) should continue using EZ Disposal, which has had the contract for trash collection services in WG for the past ten years, despite of its raised monthly fee relative to those of ABC Waste. To justify this claim, the arguer provides the evidence that the frequency of EZ to collect trash in a week is more often than that of ABC, and EZ , which used to have the same number of trucks as ABC, has ordered extra trucks. In addition, he cites the result of a last year's town survey that indicates EZ possesses positive feedback from its customers. However, a careful examination of this argument would reveal how groundless the conclusion is.

First, the mere fact that EZ collects trash one times more than ABC in a week provides no justification for the conclusion that WG should choose it. After all, we have no idea if and exactly how much WG would benefit from this. Lacking information about the unpredictable benefits, there are several other possibilities. Maybe for WG, one time in a week is enough to deal with its disposals so there is no necessity for twice at all.If this is the case, the extra one time seems worthless. And perhaps ABC only need one time per week to finish all trash collecting of WG while EZ have to do twice, which may suggest a different capability and efficiency between them. Consequently, a conclusion based on frequency proves to be insufficient.

Second, an additional trucks order lends no support to the arguer's conclusion. On the one hand, no evidence indicates that WG need more trucks. On the other hand, we don't know when this order will become reality. Even if this order is fulfilled,I still wonder whetherthese extra trucks are conducive to WG seems doubtful. The arguer didn't inform us the actual usage of these trucks and it is equally possible that these trucks are ordered to replace the old ones that cannot be used any longer. In this case, the amount of trucks of both EZ and ABC remain the same. Even if the ordered trucks of EZ are a net increase, we still need to know details about the individual differences of the truck between both to well assess the whole capability and performance.

Thirdly, the survey the arguer cited is too ambiguous to bolster the conclusion.  Unless we are certain about the total number and the source of the respondents, we have every reason to doubt the survey's trustworthiness. It is very likely that the total number is too small to reflect any situation and the most of the respondents weren't the residents of WG. Moreover, the single survey based upon one company lacks credibility, because we never know that if the respondence of ABC is better than that of EZ. To better evaluate their performance, the exact feedback of the service of both companies should be shown to us.

Finally, all the conclusion of the arguer is upon an unwarranted assumption: he assumes that the fee is the decisive factor for WG council to make the switching. However, it is reasonable that the consideration of it self’s financial problem--WG can't afford a higher expense--alone compelled it to change. And it is also possible that WG has launched a new disposal recycle program which is expected to save a lot of money and labor in trash collecting.

As it stands, the argument is not well reasoned. To make it logically acceptable, the arguer would have to demonstrate that the superiority EZ possesses would benefit WG more than ABC would. In addition, the arguer must provide more background about WG's decision in order for a complete evaluation.

宇之空UID: 2341042

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."

In this argument, the arguer recommends that Walnut Grove(WG) should continue using EZ Disposal, which has had the contract for trash collection services in WG for the past ten years, despite of its raised monthly fee relative to those of ABC Waste. To justify this claim, the arguer provides the evidence that the frequency of EZ to collect trash in a week is more often than that of ABC, and EZ , which used to have the same number of trucks as ABC, has ordered extra trucks. In addition, he cites the result of a last year's town survey that indicates EZ possesses positive feedback from its customers. However, a careful examination of this argument would reveal how groundless the conclusion is.

First, the mere fact that EZ collects trash one times （time）more than ABC in a week provides no justification for the conclusion that WG should choose it. After all, we have no idea if and exactly how much WG would benefit from this. Lacking（of） information about the unpredictable benefits, there are several other possibilities. Maybe for WG, one time in a week is enough to deal with its disposals so there is no necessity for twice at all.If this is the case, the extra one time seems worthless. And perhaps ABC only need one time per week to finish all trash collecting of WG while EZ have to do twice,（这句话和上面那句好像是一个意思，如果合并可能会显得更好一点）which may suggest a different capability and efficiency between them. Consequently, a conclusion based on frequency proves to be insufficient.

Second, an additional trucks order lends no support to the arguer's conclusion. On the one hand, no evidence indicates that WG need more trucks. On the other hand, we don't know when this order will become reality. Even if this order is fulfilled,I still wonder whetherthese extra trucks are conducive to WG seems doubtful. The arguer didn't inform us the actual usage of these trucks and it is equally possible that these trucks are ordered to replace the old ones that cannot be used any longer. In this case, the amount of trucks of both EZ and ABC remain the same. Even if the ordered trucks of EZ are a net increase, we still need to know details about the individual differences of the truck between both to well assess the whole capability and performance.

Thirdly, the survey the arguer cited is too ambiguous to bolster the conclusion.  Unless we are certain about the total number and the source of the respondents, we have every reason to doubt the survey's trustworthiness. It is very likely that the total number is too small to reflect any situation and the most of the respondents weren't the residents of WG. Moreover, the single survey based upon one company lacks credibility, because we never know that if the respondence of ABC is better than that of EZ. To better evaluate their performance, the exact feedback of the service of both companies should be shown to us.

Finally, all the conclusion of the arguer is upon an unwarranted assumption: he assumes that the fee is the decisive factor for WG council to make the switching. However, it is reasonable that the consideration of it self’s financial problem--WG can't afford a higher expense--alone compelled it to change. And it is also possible that WG has launched a new disposal recycle program which is expected to save a lot of money and labor in trash collecting.

As it stands, the argument is not well reasoned. To make it logically acceptable, the arguer would have to demonstrate that the superiority EZ possesses would benefit WG more than ABC would. In addition, the arguer must provide more background about WG's decision in order for a complete evaluation.

我觉得你写的挺好的，该攻击的所有点基本上都攻击到了，我只挑出来一点点小毛病啊:loveliness: