Argument017 【南智组 Norman第18次作业】

norman518UID: 188582

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."


In this letter, based on the premise that EZ Disposal (EZ) raises fee of trash collection is reasonable, the author arrives at a conclusion that the Walnut Grove's town council (WGTC) is mistaken, and then suggests that we should continue using EZ. To support his premise, the author provides a series of evidences ranged the frequency of trash collection to the truck numbers of each company, and cites a last year's survey. However, I find the conclusion and suggestion are full of fallacies from premise to reasoning.

In the first place, even if the premise of EZ raising fee of trash collection is rational, the author's conclusion is still untenable. Perhaps there are other more vital factors than the price for WGTC to switch EZ Disposal to ABC Waste (ABC). In this letter, the author falls to provide any detailed information on processing technology about both ABC and EZ.  It is entirely possible that EZ is a traditional trash disposal's company by means of landfill and destructor, which have severely polluted on both local air and water; while ABC is a hi-tech company of trash collection by the aid of biochemical technology to dispose organic garbage into useful objects, such as alcohol and firedamp, and then to provide the town warm-system for residents. If this is the case, the author's conclusion about WGTC being mistaken is irrational, let alone to his suggestion.

In the second place, the author’s conclusion is based on an unjustified premise that EZ raise the fee of trash is rational. In this letter, the author falls to indicate any reasonable factors about EZ's raising price, and to illuminate the application of the raising fee. Why could EZ not provide the same service as the same price kept up 10 years? It is likely possible that EZ is falling into financial crisis for its ineffective management, or for its excessively extended business on other towns. Considering other factors, such as inflation, the increasing level of live, the improving service on trash collection, the raising amount of 500$ is still questionable. Perhaps it is more reasonable for EZ to raise 300$ rather than its original 500$. If the author could not illustrate the purpose of raising fee and rule out all above possibilities, we still cannot accept the 500$ markup.

Finally, the evidence cited to support premise are unpersuasive. Firstly, the twice frequencies of EZ's trash collection as ABC's provide nothing but its inefficiency or market strategy, residents could benefit from nothing but extra economical burden. Secondly, the author illuminates nothing about the purpose of the additional trucks ordered by EZ，it is wholly possible that those additional trucks are used for EZ's more extensive business in other towns rather than in Walnut Grove, and the more numbers of trucks are, the higher expenses of maintenance have, perhaps this is the main reason for EZ to raise fee. Finally, the survey cited has little to do with exceptional service, and the author fails to illuminate the detail about the survey, such as who is responsible of the survey, and how about its sampling? It is totally likely that EZ itself conducts the survey, and respondents of survey are only those favored EZ but not civilian as a whole. If the author cannot rule out all above possibilities, the three-evidence could not corroborate his/her premise at least.

In sum, the author's conclusion is untenable, and his/her suggestion is irrational. To strengthen, the author should provide more detail about their processing technology of trash collection on both ABC and EZ, and the purpose of raising fee. To better evaluate, we should get more information in detail, such as the efficiency of EZ, the purpose of additional trucks, the sponsor and sampling of the survey, and so forth.

[ 本帖最后由 norman518 于 2007-1-30 00:24 编辑 ]