|0806G-AW小组|第三次作业

Northeast-WindUID: 2408896

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: 532

In this letter the author disagrees the town council’s decision switching from EZ Disposal to ABC waste and advocates continuing the contract with EZ Disposal. As we know, obviously, the only time the author can claim his argument is reliable is when he could demonstrate the service from EZ is more necessary and better than that from ABC. However, as argued below, the evidences which are provided by the author are unconvincing as it stands.

First of all, the author claims that EZ collects trash twice a week while ABC collects only once, but this would do nothing if the total trashes in town are not increasing fast. Providing that trash collection once a week is enough, why need we twice? Also, there is no evidence that result of trash collection form EZ twice a week is clearer than that from ABC once a week. Hence, more times for trash collection can not support the increasing service is necessary to local residents.

Secondly, the author exemplifies that the number of trucks in EZ is more than that in ABC. However, on the one hand, in a not dissimilar way, if the amount of trash are steady, we need not more trucks, so the raising fee is not necessary; on the other hand, there is no proof to suggest that the additional trucks would be utilized for trash collection, perhaps, the additional trucks would take other new tasks in EZ, and even though they were for trash collection, it is possible that the additional trucks are bought for the new business in close towns rather than in Walnut Grove's town. Therefore, no satisfied proof is pointed out that more trucks would make service from EZ is better than that from ABC.

Thirdly, the author thinks that EZ provides exceptional service which is verified by a survey. This survey shows 80 percent of respondents agreed that they were 'satisfied' with EZ's performance last year, while there are several important problems which are neglected. As we usually considered, the statistic representativeness is suspect. 80 percent of responders mean it is possible that most or much of the surveyed people didn’t answer the survey, while in the small part of the surveyed people, 80 percent of them satisfied with EZ. In addition, providing that the survey is reliable, but what is assured is no argument for ABC’ service which is unsatisfied. And what is more, the survey just represents the last year’s situation, and we don’t the other 9 years’ which may be not good. To be sure, the author can not persuade us, by this survey, that service from EZ is always satisfied, even not more satisfied than which from ABC.

In sum, as I have argued before, the author’s proposal is not reliable for his weak evidences. If he wants his claim to be more convincing and adopted, he has to provide the evidences including that: 1) the amount of trash in Walnut Grove's town is increasing 2)additional service and apparatus are necessary to the local residents 3) the service quality from ABC 4) other 9 years service quality from EZ. Those would help the author to demonstrate that his proposal is well persuasive.

guomin1437UID: 2411571

写的很不错
我看了一下,也没有什么大改的,很成熟了