argument17 寄托4人组 8月17日作业

meautoUID: 2116250

Argument 17 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.'
1,WG的居民没有那么多的垃圾需要清除
2不知道EZ新买的车的用途
3调查的问题。人数是否够多。对ABC的意见，对EZ涨价后的意见
The letter concludes that the town council of Walnut Grove (WG) should contract with EZ Disposal instead of ABC Waste for trash collection services. While this argument has some merits, there are a few assumptions that deserve attention.

To begin with, whether people in WG would truly benefit form the twice per week services offered by EZ is open to question. Perhaps one trash service per week will suffice to handle all trash disposed by WG citizens. If so, EZ's excessive charge of $500 for more than one trash services per week, as compared to that of ABC, will prohibit people’s patronage of EZ. After all, people would not buy goods or services that they don't need, and there is no obvious advantage of EZ over ABC for its more frequent yet unnecessary services.

Secondly, the fact that EZ has ordered additional trucks does not indicate it would offer better services than that of ABC. Perhaps EZ will replace their old, incompetent trash cars with newly ordered ones, whereas ABC, equipped with the up-to-date trucks, collects trash more efficiently and effectively than EZ, who though boasts of having equivalent number of trucks. If this were the case, ABC would probably give WG citizens more satisfaction, contrary to what the speaker implies. What is more, we are not certain EZ would use its additional trucks for trash collecting. If not, then the speaker’s preference on EZ based on specious privilege of additional trucks is further unconvincing.

Finally, the arguer unfairly bases his/her conclusion that EZ excels ABC on trash-collecting services on town survey. For one thing, the number of the respondents might be too small to represent the overall citizens in WG on the performance of EZ. For another, general satisfaction of respondents to the survey does not dismiss the possibility that they may hold a high opinion for ABC as well. Still another, given the survey was conducted last year, when the fee of EZ remained at $2000, it is very likely that currently many citizens would think low of EZ's performance for it does worth the additional charge of $500.

To sum up, this argument is unconvincing in several aspects. Without knowing the need of WG people for trash service, for what use additional trucks ordered by EZ are, as well as people’s opinion towards both companies, the conclusion that WG should contract with EZ, rather than ABC, for its trash-collecting service is ungrounded.

bridgewalkerUID: 208595

argument17 寄托4人组 8月17日作业

Argument 17 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.'
1,WG的居民没有那么多的垃圾需要清除
2不知道EZ新买的车的用途
3调查的问题。人数是否够多。对ABC的意见，对EZ涨价后的意见
The letter concludes that the town council of Walnut Grove (WG) should contract with EZ Disposal instead of ABC Waste for trash collection services. While this argument has some merits, there are a few assumptions that deserve attention.(回应不够坚决！)

To begin with, whether people in WG would truly benefit form the twice per week services offered by EZ is open to question. Perhaps (是不是有点绝对了? might一下~) one trash service per week will suffice to handle all trash disposed by WG citizens. If so, EZ's excessive charge of $500 for more than one trash services per week, as compared to that of ABC, will prohibit people’s patronage of EZ (什么意思？patronage好像用得不当！). After all, people would not buy goods or services that they don't need, 加一句since一周一次就suffice了， and there is no obvious advantage of EZ over ABC for its more frequent yet unnecessary services.
其实这一段可以攻击speaker的一个assumption：便宜就没有好质量。然后谈1周1次+20辆车足够，多了是浪费；ABC效率高、技术先进、管理高效，进而成本低。

Secondly, the fact that EZ has ordered additional trucks does not indicate it would offer better services than that of ABC. Perhaps (又绝对了) EZ will replace their old, incompetent trash cars with newly ordered ones, whereas ABC, equipped with the up-to-date trucks, collects trash more efficiently and effectively删 than EZ, who though boasts of having equivalent number of trucks. If this were the case, ABC would probably give WG citizens more satisfaction (换词), contrary to what the speaker implies. What is more, we are not certain EZ would use its additional trucks for trash collecting. If not, then the speaker’s preference on EZ based on specious privilege of additional trucks is further unconvincing.(你可以说EZ买新车、提高价格可能是为了在别的地方拓展业务。)

Finally, the arguer unfairly bases his/her conclusion that EZ excels ABC on trash-collecting services on town survey. For one thing, the number of the respondents might be too small to represent the overall citizens in WG on the performance of EZ. For another, general satisfaction of respondents to the survey does not dismiss the possibility that they may hold a high opinion (approval?) for ABC as well. Still another (in addition?), given the survey was conducted last year, when the fee of EZ remained at $2000, it is very likely that currently (at present?) many citizens would think low of EZ's performance for it does worth the additional charge of $500.

To sum up, this argument is unconvincing in several aspects. Without knowing the need of WG people for trash service, for what use additional trucks ordered by EZ are, as well as people’s opinion towards both companies, the conclusion that WG should contract with EZ, rather than ABC, for its trash-collecting service is ungrounded.

[ Last edited by bridgewalker on 2005-8-17 at 21:20 ]