Argument17 FLY AW小组第二周作业

flycc28UID: 2164453

17The 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."


Syllabus:
1.        EZ collects trash twice a week, however, it’s unnecessary needed. On contrary, it leads to higher cost of collection.
2.        EZ currently has ordered 20 trucks additionally can’t show that the trucks will be used for collection at walnut grove’ town. Even so, that is not equal to more and service.
3.        From the survey which lacks specific statistics to show us the rationality, we can’t conclude cursorily that the respondents are likely to pay more 25% to use EZ.



The arguer’s conclusion seems to be sound and convincing at first glance that walnut grove’s town council should continue using EZ, although EZ rises its service charge from 2000 to 2500 a month, because it provide exceptional service. However, careful scrutiny of the letter reveals numerous flaws that render the arguer’s view untenable support to the recommendation.

Firstly, one seemly crucial advantage of EZ disposal over ABC disposal is that it collects trash twice , while ABC only trash once a week. The arguer lay much emphasizes on this point that it’s the main reason why EZ rises 25% price. However, it’s probably that the trash need to be collect only asks for once a week, that is to say, the additional once is, to large extent, superfluous. Therefore the risen price is groundless. What’s more, there are more relevant evidences showed the service level of the EZ. The factors such as the qualities of service, the efficiencies of working, the degree of credit will influence the charge of the trash collection, which we have no further known.

Secondly, another evidence provided to charge 500 higher is EZ has ordered 20 new trucks. Nevertheless, we can’t make sure that the 20 additional trucks ordered will be devoted to trash collection. The new ordered trucks may be arranged to another town nearby, or take other effect instead of trash collection. Even if the trucks will be used to collect trash of the town, whether the trucks are otiose or not is to be serious considered. The adding trucks will only bring more cost and burdens to EZ if quantity of trucks are using is enough or otiose.

Thirdly, I find the argument unconvincing, because the survey used to satisfy 80 percent of the respondents with its exceptional service is groundless. The group of the respondents may weaken the survey, for the statistic gathered are from the residents who always use EZ, they firmly support EZ in the past ten years, even have little known about ABC waste. Additional, the survey doesn’t tell why the residents accept to 25% rise, other factors may lead to the vague acceptance.

For all the reasons give above, we can conclude that the higher charge of EZ is unfair, to make the argument more persuasive, another expression, for example the more service the EZ will provide, will be needed.