Argument17 越洋农场站队快组

panegyricUID: 2218502

17提纲：
１，        首先，文中除了每周收一次垃圾之外没有提供任何Ａ的详细服务记录，管理方式，采用的技术等，没有理由认为Ａ不能提供令人满意的服务。而且在过去十年一直采用的是ＥＺ，可能作者对于Ａ并不是很了解，在ＥＺ提高了价格之后，没有理由不让市民尝试价格比较便宜的Ａ。
２，        每周收两次垃圾不一定就比一次有效。如果垃圾不是很多一次就够了的话，那么两次就没有必要；订购的卡车不一定会真的使用，就算使用也不一定用于本地，而且如果原来的２０辆已经足够的话，就没有必要增加车辆。
３，        文中的调查是在去年，不能保证今后ＥＺ的表现同样令人满意。调查的科学性，可信性都没有提及，８０％的回应者究竟占了多大的比重。
４，        为何ＥＺ要提价，文中没有说明，有可能是缺乏竞争对手，此时引进Ａ是有利的。

正文：

By making the comparison of the times of collecting trashes and the number of trucks between ABC and EZ, the author enthusiastically advocates switching back to EZ, which has served as trash disposal in the last ten years, though EZ's prize has risen from 2000 to 2500 comparing with ABC's prize of 2000. This argument seems logical, yet after close examination, it is not thoroughly well reasoned.

In the text, the author has not presented any service record, approaches of management or the technologies which ABC has adopted, and the only information concerning the operation of ABC is that it collected trashes once a week without any valuable details. Yet, all of these are vital for estimating their services thus influential to the final conclusion. Unfortunately, the author fails to provide any of them which render his conclusion inaccurate and irresponsible.  On the other hand, as the text indicated, EZ has been collected for over ten years, therefore the citizens and the government officers are more familiar with it , comparing with the relatively new of ABC. Under the condition of unfamiliarity, though, the requisite fairness which serves as the ultimate balancer of the market economy is somewhat blurred. After all, this kind of unfamiliarity bestowed ABC the opportunity of establishing a completely new image, and in light of its much lower prize, this attempt is worthwhile.

Also in the text, the author utilized the times of collection and number of trucks as attestation of EZ's relatively superiority; however their correlation is not as clear as the text implied. Collecting trashes twice a week does not account for better service in the case that once a week is frequent enough. It is possible that WG is not so populous as metapolics or its citizens are generally prefer to more simple way of living or ABC's collection is pretty exhaustive that collecting twice a week is paramount to a kind of waste of labor and government's financing. The author also mentioned the order of new trucks in EZ, which is not persuasive either. Order is not equal to application, and it is not mentioned whether these trucks would be used in WG or that the order is necessary for effective collection. What if these cars are designed to employ in another city or these is to substitute the old trucks--in light of their long years of service it is quite possible--with the total number unchanged; what if 20 trucks is enough to fulfill their obligation, and more is simply add to the burden of taxpayers?

The author also referred to survey last year to vindicate his position with 80% of respondents satisfied with EZ's service, which seems reasonable yet actually fallacious. There is no information about the background, career, the time of dwelling, gender, age of these participators, and we do not know whether they are representative of all citizens in town. Also in the text, the author only mentioned respondents, then what about the ones who refuse to respond? Does it a indication that they are not so favor of EZ as the text concluded? And what  is the percentage of respondents? Do they consisted a part large enough to draw any reliable result? Also, whether the respondents are being seduced to the advantages of EZ? We simply do not know. And whether the result of survey last year can be the predication of EZ's performance in the future is under suspension.

In sum, the author is hasty to reach any meaningful conclusion just according to the proofs listed above, and for effectively advocate the resumed usage of EZ, he should be concentrating on the comparison of service between the two