argument17 [0710G +U Aug小组]第9次作业

571633UID: 2333480

Citing EZ collects trash twice a week while ABC collects only once, the arguer recommends that the Walnut Grove's town should continue using EZ though EZ raised its monthly fee recently while ABC is still the same. In order to bolster the assumption, the result of a survey said in the letter that 80 percent of the respondents satisfied with the EZ’s performance. Nevertheless, further reflection tells me that the letter ignores many practical problems.

First of all, though it is true that EZ collects trash twice while its counterpart ABC collects only once, this evidence can hardly lend direct support to what the arguer assumes. It is highly possible that other factors might contribute to the problem. For example, ABC can deal with the garbage with its powerful ability, so the company only needs to collect the trash only once. While the other company EZ need to collect twice a week. Therefore, lacking evidence we can hardly get the conclusion that we should continue using EZ.

Quite Apart from the logical problem, the arguer can not convince us with the fact that EZ will order additional trucks while the ABC remains the same. For example, maybe only a fleet of 20 trucks is enough for the town and additional trucks are not indispensable. So any decision aimed at addressing the problem of the trash collection must be based on more through and comprehensive survey to gather sufficient data so as to identify the actual causes of the problem.

Last but not least, the arguer fails to point out whether the respondents are representative and show the total number of the people. It only said that 80 percent of the respondents agreed that they were satisfied with the EX' performance. Consequently I don't ascribe it to perversity on my part, but rather to the inconsequence of the survey, which is deficient in common sense that I could never reconcile myself to the lesson. So without enough information we can't get conclusion that the EZ's performance is better than the ABC's.

Simply put, the letter's recommendation is not well supported because it relies on certain a series of doubtful assumptions that render it untenable as it stands. Before I can accept it, the writer must supply clearer evidence - perhaps by the way of a local survey or study - that the investigation will support the conclusion that we should continue using EZ. To better evaluate the argument we would need more information about the numbers of the people who responds to the survey rather than blurring the data.

xiefen0223UID: 2301911

现在改你的ARGUMENT觉得根本没什么问题，包括现在这个，抓的反驳点不错，写得也信手拈来一样。。我是考官我给你5.5分。6分似乎太完美了。。呵呵，继续留点空间发展吧。