Argument17[Jet]小组第二次作业

yimengshanUID: 2392100

TOPIC: ARGUMENT17- The following appeared in a letter to the editor of the Walnut Grove townnewspaper.

"WalnutGrove's town council has advocated switching from EZ Disposal (which has hadthe contract for trash collection services in Walnut Grove for the past tenyears) to ABC Waste, because EZ recently raised its monthly fee from $2,000 to$2,500 a month, whereasABC's fee is still $2,000. But the town council is mistaken; we should continueusing 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 orderedadditional trucks. Finally, EZ provides exceptional service: 80 percent ofrespondents to last year's town survey agreed that they were 'satisfied' withEZ's performance."
WORDS: 435          TIME: 60'          DATE: 2008-2-2

In the letter, theauthor asserts that it is not advisable for Walnut Grove to switch from DZDisposal to EZ, which should still be the best selection. To substantiate theassertion, the author compares the two disposal company from aspects of servicefee, and the numbers of trucks. Also, from a survey, the author think most ofthe town' residents are satisfied with EZ's performance. However, the author'several assumptions make the assertion unconvincing.

First, the frequencyof trash collection has no causal relationship with the effect of the service.Perhaps it is true that the twice a week’s trash collection result in EZ fee’s increase,however, it is necessarily possible that EZ’s traditional work style make itdrop behind DZ a long distance, so its cost is much higher. Or perhaps DZ is anew company, which has a higher efficiency of trash collection while a lower cost.So without make a comprehensive comparison, the author cannot claim EZ is stillsuperior to DZ.

Even assuming thattwo collections of trash a week have a better effect, the author fails to provethe relationship between truck numbers and the reasons of company selection.Perhaps EZ have more towns which have contract for trash collection service withit, so EZ trucks' work zone is much sparser than ABC Waste, and then theefficiency of single truck's trash collection is lower than ABC. Or perhaps thetwo companies have different styles of trucks, yet they have the same abilityof loan, therefore the different truck numbers actually have the same effect.
           
Even assuming thatEZ is much more worthwhile to select than DZ because of the truck advantage,the statistic data of the survey is still doubtful. First, the author fails toconsider who conduct the survey, and it is necessarily possible that EZ conductit for the sake of its own benefits. Second, we have no idea of how many peopleare the objectives of survey, and how many of them become respondents,therefore the “80 percent of respondents” is unmeaning. Third, the authorcannot draw the conclusion from last year’s data. What we care about is whichcompany is better this year, and perhaps it is this year when DZ accelerate itsdevelopment, and have more advantage than EZ.

To sum up, to makethe assertion more convincing, the author should make a comprehensive comparisonbetween EZ and DZ. What’s more, the author should substantiate the causalrelationship between truck numbers and the selection of company. Finally, thesurvey’s validity should be strengthened, and then the proportion it provideswill be more meaning.