argument17：【jet小组】修改

LITTERBOULDERUID: 2367811

In the letter, the author asserts that it is not advisable for Walnut Grove to switch from DZ Disposal to EZ（这两个公司？？）, which should still be the best selection. To substantiate the assertion, the author compares the two disposal company from aspects of service fee, and the numbers of trucks. Also, from a survey, the author think most of the town' residents are satisfied with EZ's performance（of the satisfaction with EZ's performance from the town’s residents）. However, the author' several assumptions make the assertion unconvincing.First, the frequency of 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(results) in EZ fee’s increase, however, it is necessarily possible that EZ’s traditional work style make it drop behind DZ a long distance, so its cost is much higher. Or perhaps DZ is a new 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 still superior to DZ.Even assuming that two collections of trash a week have a better effect, the author fails to prove the relationship between truck numbers and the reasons of company selection. Perhaps EZ have more towns which have contract for trash collection service with it(it 删去), so EZ trucks' work zone is much sparser than ABC Waste, and then the efficiency of single truck's trash collection is lower than ABC. Or perhaps the two companies have different styles of trucks, yet they have the same ability of loan, therefore the different truck numbers actually have the same effect.           Even assuming that EZ is much more worthwhile to select than DZ because of the truck advantage, the statistic（statistical） data of the survey is still doubtful. First, the author fails to consider who conduct the survey, and it is necessarily possible that EZ conduct（conducted）it for the sake of its own benefits. Second, we have no idea of how many people are the objectives of survey, and how many of them become respondents, therefore the “80 percent of respondents” is unmeaning. Third, the author cannot draw the conclusion from last year’s data. What we care about is which company is better this year, and perhaps it is this year when DZ accelerate its development, and have more advantage than EZ. To sum up, to make the assertion more convincing, the author should make a comprehensive comparison between EZ and DZ. What’s more, the author should substantiate the causal relationship between truck numbers and the selection of company. Finally, the survey’s validity should be strengthened, and then the proportion it provide swill be more meaning（meaningful）.