Argument17 Thrive小組第三次作業

icerainyfengUID: 2436324

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."

In this argument, the arguer asserts that the town should not switch from EZ Disposal to ABC Waste. To support this argument, the arguer points out that EZ collects trash twice a week while ABC collects only once. Besides, the arguer cites that EZ has ordered more trucks to work and a survey shows that the respondents were satisfied with EZ's performance. At first glance, the conclusion seems to be somewhat reasonable, while clearly examined, the argument suffers from a series of critical flaws, which render it unconvincing as it stands.
First of all, the author concludes that although EZ charges higher it collects trash twice a week. Accordingly, the author assumes that EZ is worth the price. However, there is no evidence presented directly shows that it is necessary to collect the trash twice a week. In other words, it might be a waste of money to deal with the trash like this. To the extent that this is the case, the author cannot rely on the mere fact to embrace the conclusion that EZ should not be substituted.
Secondly, to further justify the conclusion, the arguer asserts that EZ , currently having the same number of trucks as ABC, has ordered additional trucks. However, the author fails to offer any information about the usage of these trucks. It is entirely possible that these trucks are only purchased to show that the company is larger than ABC but not used to carry trash. Without considering and ruling out this and other possibilities, the author cannot draw any firm conclusion that the town should continue to use EZ.

Before coming to the conclusion, it is necessary to point out the last but not the weakest flaw that the survey which the arguer quoted to valid the conclusion is problematic in two aspects. First, in order to substantiate the conclusion, the survey should be sufficient in size and representative of the overall population of the residents in the town. Secondly, the author ignores an equally possibility that those respondents who were satisfied with the EZ's performance were more likely and willing to respond to this survey. In short, the survey may not represent the opponents’ view of EZ.  In either, the conclusion reaches in the argument is unwarranted.

In sum, the arguer cannot substantiate the argument based solely on the limited evidence .To advocate the argument, the author should have further research about the two companies’ performance efficiency. Also useful would be any information about how the survey is carried on and the credibility of those respondents.
提纲：
1. 作者认为EZ虽然花费较高，但是一周收两回垃圾，所以值得
2.  EZ购买了更多的货车，所以EZ更值得被用户选择
3. 作者所提供的调查有问题