argument17【0906G ANap Hand 作文互改小组】第十次作业 by goingeast

goingeastUID: 2439824

In this argument, the arguer recommends that Walnut Grove should continue hiring EZ Disposal for trash collection. Because even though EZ has raised its monthly fee from $2000 to $2500, it provides more often services, owns more trucks, and performs better than ABS Waste does. While, these reasons are not convincing enough to support the recommendation that the arguer maintains. A careful examination will reveal several flaws in this argument.

Firstly, the arguer fails to provide necessary evidence about whether residents in Walnut Grove care more about the frequency of the collection service than the amount of money they are charged. It is reasonable that more work should get more payment, yet this should rest on the prerequisite that there are really large necessary works to be done, otherwise it is a waste. Twice a week for trash colleting is not necessary if there is no enough trash to be collected, and then once a week is just fine. Besides, whether residents can afford the fee for trash collecting is open to doubt. As it is directly relate to the income of residents, it is probably that residents prefer lower charge and less frequency of collection service provided by ABC.

Secondly, the survey result is too vague to confirm the arguer’s assumption that residents were satisfied with EZ’s performance. The arguer does not tell us who were investigated in the survey and what is the percentage of people who respond to the survey. It is possible that there was bias in sampling procedure which resulted in many residents who were inclined to EZ were sampled. Or perhaps, large amount of residents were sampled, whereas only those who felt satisfied with EZ’s service sent back their responds. In such circumstance, it is certainly to reach the conclusion that EZ performs well, while, indeed the number of 80 percent is meaningless.

Finally, although EZ performs well, it does not eliminate the possibility that residents will be just as, if no more, satisfied with ABC’s performance. Since lacking information necessary about ABC, it cannot deny the possibility that service what EZ has provided cannot be obtained from ABC for residents. Admitted that, EZ has more trucks than ABC does, yet this fact say nothing about that ABC cannot collect trash by it fleet of 20 trucks. If collecting trash once a week with a fleet of 20 trucks will do well, lower fee might add more attraction to ABC.

To conclude, the arguer fails to provide sufficient evidence and thorough comparison between EZ and ABC. In absent of indispensable information, the arguer unwarrantedly draw his or her conclusion in this argument.