argument17 [gter三月机考小组第五次作业]

slipingUID: 2584903

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.”

The writer of this argument states that the town council should continue using EZ. To bolster his or her assertion, the writer provide three reasons: firstly, EZ collect trash twice a week while ABC does only once; Secondly, EZ has 20 trucks and has ordered additional trucks; Thirdly, EZ provides exceptional service, and 80percent of respondents were satisfy their performance in last year's survey. It seems reasonable at first glance, however, further scrutiny of each of the reason reveals that it is unconvincing as it stands.

To begin with, the writer dram an arbitrary conclusion that the town council discontinues using EZ is because of the increase of price. However, it is entirely possible that there are some other reasons that the town council give up to use EZ. For example, ABC use more advanced tools which create less noise and time when they collect trash. Or the implement which ABC used will produce less population to the environment. Or the employees there are more friendly and responsible. All the foregoing saying can be served as the reason the town council discontinues using EZ.

In addition, the price increased is reasonable because EZ collect trash twice a week while ABC only once time. Obviously, the writer fails to take it into account that they did the same before but only ask for $2000 why it must increase to $2500 now. Without accurate information, we certainly are able to regard the price is unreasonable. And the possibility that it is enough to be collected once a week cannot be eliminated.

Further, how many trucks there are have little things to do with better service. Since it is possible that trash in the town needs no more than 5 trucks to collect. And whether all the trucks are in good condition that they can work well for most time is also open to doubt. If it is always out of work, then even there are 20 trucks make little sense. Given that the trucks in EZ work well, no concrete statistics about how many trucks are there in ABC. Perhaps the number of trucks in ABC has surpassed the EZ’s. In a work, the trucks cannot represent the efficiency of EZ.

At last, the consequence of the survey is questionable. Because the argument provide information about the survey is too vague to convince me. At first, the town is very the Walnut Grove town? If not, the result will come to incredible. How many people are involved in the survey? Is it enough to support the result of the survey? Are the respondents are chosen in random? All these are not mentioned in the argument, so the survey becomes less convincing.

All in all, the writer gives us a weak argument. To strength it, more information about the reason of discontinue use EZ, EZ increase the price should be offered. Addition, the accurate information about the survey is needed.

nortromUID: 2591367

The writer of this argument states that the town council should continue using EZ. To bolster his or her assertion, the writer provide three reasons: firstly, EZ collect trash twice a week while ABC does only once; Secondly, EZ has 20 trucks and has ordered additional trucks; Thirdly, EZ provides exceptional service, and 80percent of respondents were satisfy(satisfied with) their performance in last year's survey. It seems reasonable at first glance, however, further scrutiny of each of the reason reveals that it is unconvincing as it stands.
To begin with, the writer dram an arbitrary conclusion that the town council discontinues using EZ is because of the increase of price. However, it is entirely possible that there are some other reasons that the town council give up to use EZ. For example, ABC use more advanced tools which create less noise and time when they collect trash. Or the implement which ABC used will produce less population to the environment. Or the employees there are more friendly and responsible. All the foregoing saying can be served as the reason the town council discontinues using EZ.关于这一段我有疑问，因为涨价而放弃EZ究竟是作者自己的揣测还是他仅仅在说一个事实，寄托上有关于这个的讨论，我觉得错误多的话尽量不要主要攻击这类有争议的。
In addition, the price increased is reasonable because EZ collect trash twice a week while ABC only once time.(这样写可能造成误解，应该直接否定) Obviously, the writer fails to take it into account that they did the same before but only ask for $2000 why it must increase to $2500 now. Without accurate information, we certainly are able to regard the price is unreasonable. And the possibility that it is enough to be collected once a week cannot be eliminated.
Further, how many trucks there are have little things to do with better service. Since it is possible that trash in the town needs no more than 5 trucks to collect. And whether all the trucks are in good condition that they can work well for most time is also open to doubt. If it is always out of work, then even there are 20 trucks make little sense. Given that the trucks in EZ work well, no concrete statistics about how many trucks are there in ABC. Perhaps the number of trucks in ABC has surpassed the EZ’s. In a work(word), the trucks cannot represent the efficiency of EZ.
At last, the consequence of the survey is questionable. Because the argument provide information about the survey is too vague to convince me. At first, the town is very the Walnut Grove town? If not, the result will come to incredible. How many people are involved in the survey? Is it enough to support the result of the survey? Are the respondents are chosen in random? All these are not mentioned in the argument, so the survey becomes less convincing.
All in all, the writer gives us a weak argument. To strength it, more information about the reason of discontinue(discontinuing) use(using) EZ, EZ increase the price should be offered. In Addition, the accurate information about the survey is needed.