Argument17 [老兵小组]第二次作业

michael_1984UID: 2327441

17(No.2)
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."

1，              是否需要一周两次
2，               提高价格，可能是由于为了收回成本，而且购买的卡车不一定用于本城
3，               调查的代表性


In the letter, the author comprare several aspectes betweent EZ and ABC, and cites a survey of people's satisfactions toward EZ which provided services in Walnut Grove (WG) for the past ten years. On the basis of those evidence, the author recommend the WG's council to continue make contract with EZ, although its fee has increased. Close scritny of these supporting evidence, however, lend little credible support to the author's recommendation.

The threshold problem is that the author provide scant evidence to support the services of EZ will better than those of ABC. The author cites EZ collect trash twice a week, while ABC just once a week. Nevetheless, we are not informed whether the additional collecing is needed, or some other reasons for the additinal service. Perhaps, the additional service is actually not needed in WG. Even though it is needed, it might due to EZ has not enough truck to collect the whole trash at one time, and it is entirely possible that ABC has the sufficient truck to collect whole trash at one time. Since the author fails to rule out these possiblities, I cannot accept the author's conclusion.

Another problem worth considering is that what the ordered additional trucks of EZ are use for. It is wholly possible the odered additional trucks of EZ will not be serviced for WG, so the evidence that EZ has ordered additional trucks is too vague to support the author's claim. In addition, the cost increased in EZ's service fee may result from the additinal trucks, which may not associate with EZ's service in WG. The scenario, if true, would cast considrable doubt to the author's recommendation.

The third problem is the reliability of the survey upon which the recommendation relies. We are not informed any information about the number of the participants, and whether the respondents are representative of the over all citizen. The smaller the size of the number is, the less reliable the survey is. Moreover, it is possible that the respondents are those who satisfied with the service of EZ, while those who not satisfied with the service of EZ did not participate in the survey. In each scenario, the author could not rely on the unsubstantiated survey to support his or her recommendation.

The last problem is the author’s evidence that the EZ could provide exceptional service which the author regards as a critical reason for continuing make contract with EZ rather ABC. Nevertheless, did the WG need the exceptional service? And even it is due to the insufficient capability of the EZ’s trucks, so the EZ had to provide the exceptional service. It is possible that the capability of the ABC’s trucks are sufficient, and perhaps that the ABC would provide exceptional service if necessary. Since the author fails to eliminate these possibilities, his or her recommendation cannot be taken seriously.

To sum up, as it stands, the recommendation is not well supported. The author should provide more information about the comparison between the two companies.