argument17 有拍必回^_^

surreal_stevenUID: 2239190

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."

字数：412

This seemingly sound letter draws the conclusion that the town council should still use EZ, according to several listed evidence and a so-called survey. However, a careful analysis discloses that it is flawed in several aspects.

To begin with, the arguer relies on the assumption that the price rise of EZ is reasonable, supported by 3 listed evidences, so the council should continue to corporate with EZ. Yet it may not necessarily be the case. In fact, the higher price of EZ may not be caused by their additional order of the trucks but because of their rising cost in the management; the one more trash collection every week can be also caused by the lower efficiency, which raise the cost in the meantime. Further, the author fails to prove that the once-a-week collection is not enough to keep the city clean and whether it is essential to order more trucks. It is quite possible that EZ orders the extra trucks to expand their business in another town. If the ABC can provide the same or even better service with a relatively lower price and higher efficiency, why should the council still use EZ?

Moreover, the author fails to take the possible tight financial budget of the local government into consideration. It is equally likely that the council switches from EZ to ABC just because they cannot afford the extra $500, even if the EZ can provide better service and the citizens are satisfied with EZ’s performance. If so, the recommendation in the letter is not feasible.  

In addition, the survey on which the argument depends is open to doubt. The number of the participant of the survey is unknown. Perhaps these are only 4 or 5 people in the sample, which is too small to be representative. Further, these is no guarantee that the opinion of respondents in the survey can reflect the general attitudes of all the citizen as a whole, even if the sample is big enough. If most of the respondents are the employees from EZ Company, then the result of the survey might be far from accurate. Unless the author can provide more evidence to prove the statistical reliability of the survey, I cannot be convinced that the conclusion is acceptable.

In sum, as it lacks sufficient evidence and reasonable scrutiny, the conclusion reached in this argument is invalid and misleading. By taking all the factors I mentioned above into consideration could this letter be more persuasive.

[ 本帖最后由 surreal_steven 于 2007-7-15 20:27 编辑 ]