argument17 高频,组织的有点乱,望指点逻辑组织..

阿择菜UID：2110339

Argument17  第20篇 让砖头来得更猛烈些吧！
------摘要------
作者：寄托家园作文版普通用户     共用时间：30分2秒  433 words
从2005年7月14日2时4分到2005年7月14日2时30分
------题目------
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.'

-------------------------
Given some evidences and some analysis, the arguer concludes that the Walnut Grove town should continue to choose the EZ disposal. Although it is credible on the surface, Closer examination finds some hidden logical problems.

Firstly, the arguer provide the fact that the EZ disposal collects trash twice a week, while ABC collects only once. We do not know how many times the citizens of the town need. Perhaps the disposal  of collecting twice  is excessive and wasteful. Maybe only one collecting meet the need of the citizens. Further, even the citizen need twice, the arguer also gives the fact that EZ increases 20 additional trucks. However, the arguer do not explain the uses of trucks, perhaps which are used to another aspects rather the trash or are used to other cities. Even if the trucks are used to the trash, the arguer do not prove the reason why the EZ disposal increase the fees from $2000 to $2500,  if the citizens need one collect, the $500 is wasteful. Even though requiring two collects, we will consider it is more economical that increasing 50% collects needs fees of increasing 25%. Thus, when we need more information about the require of citizens,  usage of trucks and reasons of increasing fees, we can decide whether the EZ is prior to ABC.

Even so above, in spite of fees of ABC is cheaper than the EZ, the arguer does not provide that the service quality and ways of EZ is better than ABC. Perhaps granted the ABC disposal requires less fees, the service of ABC is better than EZ. Hence, we should know the service of ABC compared with the EZ.

When the EZ provide the exceptional service, we might ask: When and where does the data get? Are the samples representative and random? Are the samples too large? How does the arguer infer the population from the samples? Maybe the samples is only several people, so it does not represent the whole response of citizens. Perhaps the samples is inclined to the EZ disposal than the ABC. . In addition, the 'satisfied'  citizens participating the survey do not share the service of ABC. Perhaps once they got the services of ABC, they maybe get more satisfied with the ABC than EZ. Maybe the quality and attitude of ABC is much better. Therefore, it is decided after using the service of ABC.

In sum, the argument lacks sufficient evidence and well-rounded consideration as discussed above. We should make further survey and make the decision after the citizens use the service of ABC for a period time.

[ Last edited by 阿择菜 on 2005-8-15 at 20:26 ]

阿择菜UID：2110339

ding