Argument17 勇往直前小组15th作者nbta03

nbta03UID：2326371

17 - 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: 424          TIME: 00:30:00          DATE: 2007-8-3 11:38:35

In the argument, the arguer recommends that Walnut Grove's town council should still refer to EZ Disposal rather than switching to ABC Waste for that EZ gives a better service. At first glance, the argument seems to be appealing , while a careful examination would reveals that it suffers from several critical fallacies.

Firstly, the conclusion is based on unconvincing factor that EZ collects trash once more than ABC a week though EZ cost excessive $500. The factor is insufficient to draw any conclusion. Maybe there is no need of two collections a week which means ABC and EZ collects the same quantity of trash per week and hence EZ's service could not be better. Furthermore, if EZ has to collect trash twice a week for that it is unable to collect them all in one collection with ABC's capacity of fulfilling the job once, considering the lower fee of ABC, then it is ostensive that ABC do a far more better job than EZ. The arguer would have to provide more evidence about the collection of two companies to make the conclusion convincing.

Secondly, the arguer makes a hasty generalization. Though EZ ordered additional trucks, it does means that it will do better than ABC. We know nothing about the use of the additional trucks. If they are not used to collect trashes then they have little to do with the collection service. Moreover, the quantity of trucks does not represent the ability of collection. It is possible that EZ could collects much less trash than ABC so that it has to order more cars, even still not better than ABC in the future. Then it is obvious that EZ offers a poor service.

Last but not least, the survey cited by arguer in which 80 percent of respondents were satisfied with EZ's performance is vague to draw any conclusion from. We are told nothing the exact number of the respondents and the percentage of the all town. If the respondents is just a small portion of the town ,  then it lacks the representative of a overall attitude. As well, if the respondents have never tried ABC's service and have no acquaintance of ABC, then it is ridiculous to make any conclusion from the survey.

In sum, the arguer's conclusion lacks credibility because the evidence cited in argument does not lend strong support to what the arguer claims. To strengthen the conclusion, the arguer would have to provide more information about the service capacity of two companies. Additionally, the arguer must give us more evidence concerning the citizens' attitude towards the service of EZ.

PudingUID：2364107

17 - 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: 424          TIME: 00:30:00          DATE: 2007-8-3 11:38:35

In the argument, the arguer recommends that Walnut Grove's town council should still refer to EZ Disposal rather than switching to ABC Waste for that EZ gives a better service. At first glance, the argument seems to be appealing, while a careful examination would reveals(reveal) that it suffers from several critical fallacies.

Firstly, the conclusion is based on unconvincing factor that EZ collects trash once more than ABC a week though EZ cost excessive $500. The factor is insufficient to draw any conclusion. Maybe there is no need of(for) two collections a week which means ABC and EZ collects the same quantity of trash per week and hence EZ's service could not be better.(这句好像有点长而且就不清楚了，最好分几段写) Furthermore, if EZ has to collect trash twice a week for that it is unable to collect them all in one collection with ABC's capacity of fulfilling the job once, considering the lower fee of ABC, then it is ostensive that ABC do a far more better job than EZ. The arguer would have to provide more evidence about the collection of two companies to make the conclusion convincing.攻击垃圾收的数量

Secondly, the arguer makes a hasty generalization(about what). Though EZ ordered additional trucks, it does means that it will do better than ABC. We know nothing about the use of the additional trucks. If they are not used to collect trashes then they have little to do with the collection service. Moreover, the quantity of trucks does not represent the ability of collection. It is possible that EZ could collects(collet) much less trash than ABC so that it has to order more cars, even still not better than ABC in the future. Then it is obvious that EZ offers a poor service.(攻击多出的卡车不一定用于收垃圾)

Last but not least, the survey cited by arguer in which 80 percent of respondents were satisfied with EZ's performance is vague to draw any conclusion from. We are told nothing the exact number of the respondents and the percentage of the all town. If the respondents is just a small portion of the town, then it lacks the representative of a overall attitude. As well, if the respondents have never tried ABC's service and have no acquaintance of ABC, then it is ridiculous to make any conclusion from the survey.攻击survey。还可以加一条：给调查者的选择是：满意和比较满意,就没法表达自己的不满了

In sum, the arguer's conclusion lacks credibility because the evidence cited in argument does not lend strong support to what the arguer claims. To strengthen the conclusion, the arguer would have to provide more information about the service capacity of two companies. Additionally, the arguer must give us more evidence concerning the citizens' attitude towards the service of EZ.