ARGUMENT17 排就回,这篇写得不好

paburawUID: 2204657

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: 334          TIME: 上午 12:30:00          DATE: 2006-6-30
1 没有考虑所有的原因为什么委员会选择ABC
2 调查有问题，代表性，以及倾向性
3 一些小问题，说不定人民在乎钱，卡车多也不能说明问题

The author of this letter suggests that Walnut Grove's (WG) town council should continue using EZ to collect trash. The author continues to cite various evidence of better performance of EZ. Nevertheless, this argument is specious in several respects.

To begin with the arguer fails to consider other possible reasons that WG's town council choose ABC Waste. Except the cheaper fee, the ABC Waste may have other advantages, for example that ABC Waste adopt a less polluting facilities to address trash, while EZ's method is more harmful to environment. It is also possible that ABC's service will be better than EZ. Until the author makes clearly why the town council chooses ABC Waste, his letter would be more tenable.

As for the survey cited in this letter, since in the absence of the procedures of the survey, the representative of this survey is open to doubt. The statistical evidence concerning about the percentage and number of residents participating in this survey is not informed and thus we have good reason to doubt the representative of the sample; in addition, it is entirely possible that those who favor EZ are more willing to respond to survey than other people are.

Another problem with this letter is that the author fails to consider the possible that the residents would care for the charging fee than the time of collection trash. If so, the double time of collection trash would not sway the council’s decision. In addition, the fact that EZ which already has 20 trucks order additional truck amount to scanty evidence to support the author’s suggestion, it is entirely possible that those trucks have another function.

In sum, this argument is not well-reason due to its incredible evidence. To better bolster his suggestion that EZ is the better choice, the evidence might include the following: 1 the all reasons that why town council chooses ABC Waste rather than EZ; 2 the acceptable reason for EZ charging more 500 dollars monthly.

[ 本帖最后由 paburaw 于 2006-7-5 12:16 编辑 ]