Argument17 回拍给连接

qwerty_123UID: 201741

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."
In this argument, the arguer concludes that Walnut Grove's town council should not switch from EZ Disposal to ABC Waste. To substantiate the conclusion that the arguer points out that EZ collects trash twice a week, while ABC collects only once, and EZ has ordered additional trucks. Moreover, the arguer cites the result of last year's town survey that 80 percent of respondents agreed that they were 'satisfied' with EZ's performance. A careful reflection of the argument would revel how groundless it is.
1, 质疑调查，随机性，怎样调查
2，无理假设镇上的垃圾很多需每周两次清扫，和买的卡车不是用于更新旧的
3，急于概括，没有说明ABC的情况，和比较EZ和ABC


In the first place, the validity of the survey is doubtful. The arguer fails to point out that how the survey was conducted. If the 80 percent of respondents are the workers of EZ, people might echo with expected answers, this result would be greatly unconvincing. Moreover, in general, respondents for the survey should be able to represent all people in Walnut Grove town. However, from the survey quoted in this argument, we find no sign of such procedures for random samplings, and have good reasons to doubt whether the respondents are representative or not to reflect the general altitude of people in Walnut Grove town, as a whole.


In the second place, the arguer assume that with 20 new trucks EZ has ordered, the number of trucks is more than before. Actually, this is not the necessarily case. For instance, it is most likely that the trucks of EZ are old enough to buy new trucks. Therefore, this argument is unwarranted without ruling out such possibility. Another, same flaw applies on the arguer said "EZ collects trash twice a week, while ABC collects only once." The arguer falsely gratuitous assumption that the trash in Walnut Grove is needed to collected twice a week. However, there is no evidence to support the arguer's assumption. It is possible that the town is not needed to collected trash twice a week. So, without ruling out such possibility, the argument is unaccepted.


In the third place, when we probe in the result of the survey and the assumptions the arguer made, we may find bigger flaw in this argument. The arguer commits a fallacy of hasty generalization. Even if 80 percent of respondents to last year's town survey agreed that they were 'satisfied' with EZ's performance, EZ collects trash twice a week, while ABC collects only once, and EZ has ordered additional trucks, it does not follow that the town council is mistaken. The arguer do not point out the performance of ABC Waste, and the relationship the frequency of collection service and the amount of money they are charged and compare the EZ Disposal with ABC Waste. Unless these evidence are support, which is unknown for this argument, there is guarantee that Walnut Grove's town council should not switch from EZ Disposal to ABC Waste. Without ruling out these and other possible factors, the argument is doubtful.


In sum, to strength the argument, the arguer should point out more information about the survey, such as how the survey conducted, how respondents chosen, etc. To better evaluate the recommendation, we may need more information about the performance of ABC Waste, and the relationship the frequency of collection service and the amount of money they are charged and the result of comparing the EZ Disposal with ABC Waste. Otherwise the argument is groundless.

[ Last edited by staralways on 2005-7-28 at 12:39 ]

abigredUID: 154473

In this argument, the arguer concludes that Walnut Grove's town council should not switch from EZ Disposal to ABC Waste. To substantiate the conclusion that the arguer points out that EZ collects trash twice a week, while ABC collects only once, and EZ has ordered additional trucks. Moreover, the arguer cites the result of last year's town survey that 80 percent of respondents agreed that they were 'satisfied' with EZ's performance. A careful reflection of the argument would revel how groundless it is.
1, 质疑调查，随机性，怎样调查
2，无理假设镇上的垃圾很多需每周两次清扫，和买的卡车不是用于更新旧的
3，急于概括，没有说明ABC的情况，和比较EZ和ABC


In the first place, the validity of the survey is doubtful. The arguer fails to point out that how the survey was conducted. If the 80 percent of respondents are the workers of EZ, people might echo with expected answers, this result would be greatly unconvincing. Moreover, in general, respondents for the survey should be able to represent all people in Walnut Grove town. However, from the survey quoted in this argument, we find no sign of such procedures for random samplings, and have good reasons to doubt whether the respondents are representative or not to reflect the general altitude of people in Walnut Grove town, as a whole.


In the second place, the arguer assume that with 20 new trucks EZ has ordered, the number of trucks is more than before. Actually, this is not the 不用the necessarily case. For instance, it is most likely that the trucks of EZ are old enough to buy new trucks.句意有问题 Therefore, this argument is unwarranted without ruling out such possibility. Another, the same flaw applies on用to the arguer said "EZ collects trash twice a week, while ABC collects only once." The arguer falsely gratuitous assumption that the trash in Walnut Grove is needed to collected twice a week 没有谓语？. However, there is no evidence to support the arguer's assumption. It is possible that the town is not needed to collected trash twice a week. So, without ruling out such possibility, the argument is unaccepted.


In the third place, when we probe in 嗯，好词 the result of the survey and the assumptions the arguer made, we may find bigger flaw in this argument. The arguer commits a fallacy of hasty generalization. Even if 80 percent of respondents to last year's town survey agreed that they were 'satisfied' with EZ's performance, EZ collects trash twice a week, while ABC collects only once, and EZ has ordered additional trucks, it does not follow that the town council is mistaken. The arguer do not point out the performance of ABC Waste, and the relationship the frequency of collection service and the amount of money they are charged and compare the EZ Disposal with ABC Waste. Unless these evidence are support, which is unknown for this argument, there is guarantee that Walnut Grove's town council should not switch from EZ Disposal to ABC Waste. Without ruling out these and other possible factors, the argument is doubtful.  我觉得在车的数量还有收垃圾的次数都有ABC的情况，只是在调查上缺乏对比，是不是可以把这段放在b1后面呢

In sum, to strength the argument, the arguer should point out more information about the survey, such as how the survey conducted, how respondents chosen, etc. 朋友说尽量不要用缩写 To better evaluate the recommendation, we may need more information about the performance of ABC Waste, and the relationship the frequency of collection service and the amount of money they are charged and the result of comparing the EZ Disposal with ABC Waste. Otherwise the argument is groundless.

顺便提一下：还有一个错误是，不选ABC也不一定要选EZ，还有其他公司

qwerty_123UID: 201741

这是我刚开始写阿狗，用的一些模板，今后会注意的。
谢谢静仪！
现在回家也不怎么上网了，没怎么改文章还请原谅！