argument17【jet小组】第二次作业

LITTERBOULDERUID: 2367811

提纲：(1)将两个公司进行比较的前提并不公平：一个是已经使用了十年的公司，另一个确实并不为人所熟悉的公司。
     （2）文中提出使用EZ公司会更好,但是缺乏依据：究竟一个礼拜收两次垃圾是否有必要，去年的调查到现在是否有时效性，新进购买的两辆垃圾车是否适用于该市的
     （3）即使上述都成立，多付这500是否合算：考虑到公共资源的分配.


Date:2008-02-01      Time: N/A          Word:503
To support his recommendation on continuing using EZ Disposal, who has engaged in trash collection services in Walnut Grove for the past ten years, the author cites seemingly sufficient evidence. Close scrutiny of such evidence, the recommendation contains some logical flaws in some critical respects which prevents it to be a compelling one.

The very premise of this comparison between two companies lies my first contention of the author, who logically ignores the process of appreciation of some new emerging things, I mean maybe a new chain store selling familiar goods, or maybe a newly established restaurant in this district and so forth. To the contrary, one part of this comparison (EZ Disposal) is a familiar company for residents while the other part (ABC Waste) is a new company lacking of both recognition from the pubic and working experience in this town. Obviously, even in the beginning of the so-called comparison, the victory balance is partial to EZ Disposal. Yet, in retrospect of author’s evidence, we should be circumspect about something really speculative and vague.

In the first place, as mentioned in this letter that EZ Disposal provides an extra trash collection service, the necessity of this activity is dubious in the condition of some compelling evidence. Such evidence includes the total amount of trash in Walnut Grove's town and EZ’s ability to transport trash in one time. Maybe it is enough for residents to collect trash once a week, at such circumstances; an extra service is totally a waste of money considering its extra fees.


Secondly, the attitude from residents toward EZ Disposal is based on a survey one year ago. My common sense tells me that the decrease in the quality of service can be changed even by a tiny change of his leaders and lack of efficient communication with his clients. Furthermore one year is considered a long time, especially in business, this survey lost its credibility.

To strengthen his recommendation, he also informs us EZ Disposal currently has a fleet of 20 trucks. Admittedly, there being a great improvement in its ability to collect trash, however, do that mean all the 20 trucks would put into use in Walnut Grove's town. Without ruling out other alternative use of these trucks, the author can not make it as forceful evidence, let alone make any sound recommendation.

Finally, even we assume that EZ Disposal’s service is excellent; the extra $500 per month is an inevitable factor we must face. Perhaps Walnut Grove's town’s budget is quite limited in trash collection; they have to make a compromise on the excellent service and low-priced but inferior one.

In sum, some logical flaws weaken the strength of logic in his argument. To bolster it, a current survey on residents’ opinion is necessary as well as a statistical report on the exact amount of trash a week and the frequency of collection trash. To better evaluate it, I need further evidence on the use of EZ’s 20 trucks and some new technique of ABC Waste.

[ 本帖最后由 LITTERBOULDER 于 2008-2-2 09:16 编辑 ]