Argument17

yuki鱼UID: 2414463

:( :( :(

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."

The conclusion in this letter above, recommended by the author to the editor of the Walnut Grove town newspaper, is that shifting from EZ Disposal to ABC Waste is unadvisable. To bolster this recommendation, the author provides evidence that the times of EZ is more than that of ABC. Moreover, he states that EZ Disposal has ordered more trucks, which will make EA have more trucks than ABC. Additionally, he quotes a last year's town survey for the sake of strengthening the conclusion. It seems logical ostensibly. Rigid scrunity of each of these taking points, nevertheless, discloses that no one can lend support to the conclusion credibly. It suffers from several fallacies, which leads it unconvincing as it stands.

Most distinctly, the result of the investigation seems suspicious. The claim seldom indicate who responded the poll, who guided it, how it was guided and whether the survey reflects the reality, in other words, whether the respondents' answers represent their real thoughts. The investigation fails to provide both absolute figure and relative figure simultaneously. We are not informed the total number and the spectrum of the investigation. Perhaps, the surveyors have just surveyed a few people. Taking an extreme example, there are 1000,000 citizen in this area but the survey has just covered 20 persons, which make the number of the survey get no effective. And perhaps, there are much more people who were surveyed but did not respond. Supposing that 1000 subjects were indagated, but no more than 100 echoed. The outcome appears to no representativeness. Furthermore, maybe the survey responses are not anonymous. we have no well-founded to be unsuspicious that the resondents are influenced by the survey, for the reason that it is possible that the respondents are adherents of EZ Disposal, even the employees. In addition, the survey fails to supply whether the survey requires the respondents to choose their preference between alternative. If it did, the result might distort the genuine preference of the respondents who might actually choose other answers, such as unsatisfied and very unsatisfied, while the surey gives just two choices: satisfied and very satisfied. The author mistakenly assumes that the response "satisfied" can prove the citizens' real opinions to a certainty. Besides, the last year's survey is insufficient to illuminate the situation now. It is possible there is a strong competitor appears which offer much better services, like ABC. And then, the town survey is a vague concept that it is not mentioned whether the objects of this survey include Walnut Grove. If not, it is difficult to judge the survey is meaningful. With insufficient evidence, the author fail to prove the EZ service is exceptional service.

Granted that the survey suggests EZ can offer exceptional service. Another problem that weaken the logic of this argument is that we are not informed what the trucks which has ordered additionally will be use to. It is possible that these trucks are rarely used for other works but not for trash. The action of ordering trucks can hardly support the claim that EZ is more efficient than ABC. Instead, the efficiency of ABC which has 20 trucks, as EZ, is possibly equal with, even higher than that of EZ. Lacking information about the purpose of trucks, it is so cursory that the author conclude the conclusion.

Even if the two above were attested to benifite for the conclusion, there would be another questionable evidence that the author claim that ABC collects trash only once a week while EZ collects twice. There is a likelihood that Walnut Grove does not need to collect trash twice a week. For example, the population of Walnut Grove is small and they do not have too much trash for collecting twice. Otherwise, the monthly fee of EZ has increased for $500. Comparing with the economic efficiency and work efficiency, the Walnut Grove's town council decide to choose the better one. The author commits a mistake that he supposes that the more times, the more efficient. Consequently, this claim is scantly persuasive to support the conclusion.

To sum up, merely based on certain questionable assumptions and unpersuasive proof, the author fails to justify this recommendation. True the intention that the author suggest the town council to still choose EZ in the government's best interests is well-meaning. However, to intensify the argument, it needs further survey and rational analysis; to convince the people, it needs clear evidence that can prove that choosing EZ Disposal is better than ABC; to estimate sufficiently the author's affirmation, it needs more information concerning the service of EZ.


762words