|
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, the author recommends that Walnut Grove’s town continue to contract with EZ Disposal, which has provided trash collection services for the past ten years, rather than switching from ABC Waste. To support this conclusion the author points out that EZ collects trash twice a week more than ABC collects once a week. The author also points out that both EZ and ABC has the same number trucks, EZ has ordered additional trucks. Finally, the author cites an exceptional survey that nearly 80 percent of respondents to last year's town were satisfied with EZ's performance. I find this recommendation specious on several grounds. The major problem with this argument is that the arguer fails to establish the causal relationship between switching from EZ Disposal to ABC Waste and EZ Disposal raised its monthly fee. We don't know the reason why EZ Disposal need to raised its monthly fee. Maybe they want to improve their service, which can provide much better service with the people live in Walnut Grove' town, like buy more trucks for work, collects garbage more frequently. If they can provide the service much more than they raised monthly fee value, which Walnut Grove's people have paid, the government should use EZ Disposal in the future. Another flaw that weakens the logic of the argument is that the arguer doesn’t tell us if the additional trucks are working in Walnut Grove. The EZ Disposal may have many customers, who are in the major city in the USA, and we don't know whether the car is used in the Walnut Grove. In addition, the arguer failed to tell us the circumstances about the ABC Waste. Maybe it has addition more trucks than EZ Disposal. Before I come to conclusion, it is necessary to point out another flaw in the argument that the author fails provide assurance that these respondents are representative of the overall population of people whose trash EZ Disposal collects. Moreover, even if that some people who don't responds the survey and not to do the survey, On the one hand, the group of survey's respondents may too small. Such as the survey only have ten people, and 8 of them suppose the survey, and it makes the survey less important for him. On the other hand, the survey may choice the responders' group random not representative. In sum, the recommendation is not well supported. To suppose it the letter's author must provide special evidence than Walnut Grove would benefit from an addition trash collection each week, and need give more information about the new tracks that they would use the additional trucks in Walnut Grove town. To better access the strength of the recommendation I would need more information about the number of the survey. It would also be helpful to obtain main idea from municipalities and individuals that have some experience with both EZ and ABC. 晚上头有点晕。可能有的地方写的不够周全，有些乱。望帮忙修改的同学多见谅！谢谢了！
[ 本帖最后由 adamli629 于 2007-2-9 02:37 编辑 ] | 
发表于 2007-2-9 02:35:47
签到领寄托币
GO
转发
