argument17 七月高频！！好像还是一点进步都没有。。。怎么考阿。。埃

mvpzhuangUID：205051

Argument 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.'
正文------

The recommendation endorsed in the letter is that the Walnut Grove town council must continue using EZ Disposal. To support his point, the author cites much evidence which seems reasonable and credible. However, this argument involves the sort of gross oversimplification and subjectivity.

First, the author subjective pointed out that EZ is better satisfied than ABC, which is lacking evidence. The only evidence is EZ collects trash twice a week, while ABC collects only once. Besides, there are no more evidence such as credit problems, the technology took by companies, management policies, enterprise' cultures, and so on. It is entirely possible that services supplied by ABC are not worse, but that because EZ had serviced in Walnut Grove for ten years, residents in here are more similar with EZ. Unless the author give details about the two companies differentials, I cannot accepted the recommendation based on the author's statement.

Second, the arguments cited by the author are also problematic. The author holds that the more frequent collects trash and the more trucks it have the better satisfied it is. However, it is totally possible that collect trash once a week and have small number of trucks are sufficiently for a town, and, moreover, the more frequent and more trucks are just a waste of money and resources. It is unfair to add 25 percent rewards for 50 percent more services if the additional services are not necessary needed, and what is more the additional fee will become a burden on the residents here. Another problem is the survey itself. The 80 percent respondents maybe only small number of people on the ground of the sum of people received are quite small and cannot represent the average. And we are not informed whether the survey responses were anonymous or even confidential. Without ruling out these possibilities, the survey accomplishes nothing toward bolstering the recommendation.

Finally, the author make out the recommendation too simplified. To be a part of the government, the council must consider more aspects .The most important one is the environment problems. The council should think twice about which one can do better in protecting environment when solving the trash. Meanwhile, they must take a look at the fiscal saving, which will limit the payment ability.

In sum, the author's recommendation is oversimplified, subjective and incredible. It is visible to choose ABC if it can give equally services while request less money. If the author wants to convince me, he must give more credible data that can prove EZ is better than ABC.

[ Last edited by mvpzhuang on 2005-7-26 at 16:34 ]

翦瞳UID：184872

The recommendation endorsed in the letter is that the Walnut Grove town council must continue using EZ Disposal. To support his point, the author cites much evidence which seems reasonable and credible. However, this argument involves the sort of gross oversimplification and subjectivity. (a senseless prologue, but we can hardly avoid it)

First, the author subjective pointed out that EZ is better satisfied than ABC, (this is the overall perspective other than a independent viewpoint) which is lacking [ lacks] evidence. The only evidence is EZ collects trash twice a week, while ABC collects only once. Besides, there are no more evidence such as credit problems, the technology took by companies, management policies, enterprise' cultures, and so on. It is entirely possible that services supplied by ABC are not worse, but that because EZ had serviced in Walnut Grove for ten years, residents in here are more similar with EZ. Unless the author give details about the two companies differentials, I cannot accepted the recommendation based on the author's statement. (rejection of this point needs debate of its efficiency )

Second (ly), the arguments cited by the author are also problematic. The author holds that the more frequent collects trash and the more trucks it have the better satisfied it is. However, it is totally possible that collect trash once a week and have small number of trucks are sufficiently for a town, and, moreover, the more frequent and more trucks are just a waste of money and resources. It is unfair to add 25 percent rewards for 50 percent more services if the additional services are not necessary needed, and what is more the additional fee will become a burden on the residents here. Another problem is the survey itself. The 80 percent respondents maybe only small number of people on the ground of the sum of people received are quite small and cannot represent the average. And we are not informed whether the survey responses were anonymous or even confidential. Without ruling out these possibilities, the survey accomplishes nothing toward bolstering the recommendation. (it is not a clear and well-organized debate because several different reasons in it are not clarified )

Finally, the author make out the recommendation too simplified. To be a part of the government, the council must consider more aspects .The most important one is the environment problems. The council should think twice about which one can do better in protecting environment when solving the trash. Meanwhile, they must take a look at the fiscal saving, which will limit the payment ability. (most content is irrelated to the topic)

In sum, the author's recommendation is oversimplified, subjective and incredible. It is visible to choose ABC if it can give equally services while request less money. If the author wants to convince me, he must give more credible data that can prove EZ is better than ABC. (reach another extreme: ABC is better than EZ; never do that again!)

In a word, the author did not think about the argument carefully and needs more exercise for better analysis.
一家之言，但最后我觉得怎么都不该写谁好谁坏！

[ Last edited by 翦瞳 on 2005-7-26 at 19:26 ]