argument17

cuilei_1985UID: 2121020

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."
The editor concludes that the town council's suggestion that we should switch from EZ Disposal is mistaken. To support his conclusion, he does a series contrasts. However, these contrasts are insufficient and unpersuasive in several respects.

First, the editor has imposed a casual relationship between the times during a week that the two companies provide. It is entirely possible that the trucks in EZ is not big enough and insufficient to finish the dispose at one time, so they have to do it another times while the ABC has advanced appliance which can finish at one time. Perhaps one time a week is enough, two times is a waste of resource and time, maybe the ABC is more attracting, after all, it charges less than EZ.

Secondly, the editor has failed to give a reason why EZ has raised its fee. Maybe it just wants to enlarge its profits or be required under the requirement of the Government while his service quality is no better than ABC.

Thirdly, the editor fails to provide the condition of ABC in the number of trucks and roughly believe the EZ's 20 trucks have been an advantage. Perhaps ABC has more trucks than EZ or even if ABC's number of trucks is less, but their volume is much larger which causes the general volume of trash is more than that of EZ. Maybe the increased trucks have not been planed to use as loading trash, it is probably arranged to finish some other services. Therefore, this evidence lacks more contrasts and illustration so that it can not convince the conclusion effectively.

A final problem with the argument involves the statistical reliability of the survey. There is no evidence to show the respondents are representative to the general ideas because he fails to show us how many people join the survey and whether they are random sampling. Maybe most of the respondents are clerks of EZ or their relatives. Moreover, he also lacks a contrast from ABC. Maybe more than 80 percent of these people are satisfied at ABC. Lacking information about the randomness and the reliability, the editor can not make a cogent argument based on this survey.

In sum, the argument is unconvincing as it stands. To strengthen the conclusion, the editor must assure me that there are some evident contrasts to substantiate that EZ is much better than ABC albeit his money is a litter higher. To further assess the argument, we would also need to know whether the survey is reliable.

amanda2005UID: 2120493

The editor concludes that the town council's suggestion that we should switch from EZ Disposal is mistaken. To support his conclusion, he does a series of contrast. However, these contrasts are insufficient and unpersuasive in several respects.

First, the editor has imposed a casual relationship between the times during a week that the two companies provide. It is entirely possible that the trucks in EZ is not big enough and insufficient to finish the disposalat one time, so they have to do it another times while the ABC has advanced appliance which can finish at one time. Perhaps one time a week is enough, two times is a waste of resource and time, maybe the ABC is more attracting, after all, it charges less than EZ.

Secondly, the editor has failed to give a reason why EZ has raised its fee. Maybe it just wants to enlarge its profits or be required under the requirement of the Government while his service quality is no better than ABC.

Thirdly, the editor fails to provide the condition of ABC in the number of trucks and roughly believe the EZ's 20 trucks have been an advantage. Perhaps ABC has more trucks than EZ from the beginning . Even if ABC has less trucks , we can't deny the possibility that the volume of each truck is much larger than that of the EZ's, and that
these trucks can still dispose of more trash than EZ. . Moreover, Maybe the increased trucks have not been planed for trash loading, it is probably arranged to finish some other services. Therefore, this evidence lacks more contrasts and illustration so that it can not convince the conclusion effectively.

A final problem with the argument involves the statistical reliability of the survey. There is no evidence to show the respondents are representative to the general ideas because he fails to show us how many people join the survey and whether they are random sampling. Maybe most of the respondents are clerks of EZ or their relatives. Moreover, he also lacks a contrast from ABC. Maybe more than 80 percent of these people are satisfied at ABC. Lacking information about the randomness and the reliability, the editor can not make a cogent argument based on this survey.

In sum, the argument is unconvincing as it stands. To strengthen the conclusion, the editor must assure me that there are some evident contrasts to substantiate that EZ is much better than ABC albeit his money is a litter higher. To further assess the argument, we would also need to know whether the survey is reliable

cuilei_1985UID: 2121020

thanks amanda2005!:handshake