argument17 0607GMyth小组第4次作业

最後の使徒UID: 2257608

TOPIC: ARGUMENT17 - 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: 536          TIME: 0:36:45          DATE: 2006-10-25

  According to the letter, the author states that Walnut Grove's town council advocated switching from EZ Disposal to ABC Waste because of EZ Disposal's increased charge, therefore-claiming that such switch is wrong. To support his assertion, the author mentions that EZ Disposal has better and worthy service. However, the statement suffers from an unwarranted estimation and an unfair comparison.

  Fundamentally, the author provides no evidence to prove that Walnut Grove's town council has deserted EZ Disposal and chose ABC Waste only because of their fees. The council may take other reasons under consideration, such as pollution, effect and so forth. It is entirely possible that ABC Waste has a more developed method to dispose waste, consuming less energy and causing less pollution. Without excluding such possibilities, the author can not asserts that the council's decision is wrong, only based on the discussion of whether two companies' charges are worthy.

  Even if the council made the decision just for the payment, the author's assertion is still not convincing, as it unfairly compares two companies' services and conditions.

  Firstly, whether EZ's two times of collection a week is worth $2,500 is not illustrated. Although ABC Waste only collects trash once a week, its collection may be more careful and exhaustive, while EZ just uses few trucks to collect a part of trash. The comparison of collecting times is unconvincing.

  Secondly, the details of two companies' truck fleets are not stated, before concluding that EZ's trucks are more. Whether ABC has ordered additional trucks is not known, so well as the sizes of these trucks. Perhaps the trucks of ABC are much larger than EZ's, or perhaps ABC has also ordered additional trucks.

  Thirdly, the survey of EZ's service can not prove EZ's service is better than ABC's. 80 percent of respondents may not be a large number, and not stand for exceptional service, since there are still 20 percent who are not satisfied with EZ's service.   Maybe many people do not care about the service of waste disposal company, so they just agreed that they were 'satisfied'. Even if EZ admittedly provides exceptional service, there is no evidence to say ABC will provide a worse one.

  Moreover, even EZ has showed its advantages in such comparisons, it still can not be considered as better than ABC Waste, since ABC may have advantages in other aspects to make them worth the fee, including that it has a more organized schedule to dispose waste, as well as it can dispose different kinds of waste in different methods, while EZ can not. To prove that it's a better choice to hire EZ for $2,500 per month than to hire ABC for $ 2,000 a month, the author needs a more general view.

  To sum, the author take a hasty conclusion that Walnut Grove's town council switched its waste disposal company only due to the payment. Moreover, he fails to convince us the fee of EZ is worthy enough to not switching to ABC Waste. More survey and illustration are needed to make the reason of council's switch and prove EZ's service is worth $500 more than the fee of ABC if the author wants to make his statement convincing and rational.


这次尝试用新的逻辑顺序组织文章,然后...超时了 - =
请各位狠狠的拍 m(_ _)m