- UID
- 674544
- 在线时间
- 小时
- 注册时间
- 2011-9-22
- 最后登录
- 1970-1-1
- 主题
- 帖子
- 性别
- 保密
|
The following appeared in a memorandum written by the chairperson of the West Egg Town Council.
“Two years ago, consultants predicted that West Egg’s landfill, which is used for garbage disposal, would be completely filled within five years. During the past two years, however, the town’s residents have been recycling twice as much material as they did in previous years. Next month the amount of recycled material—which includes paper, plastic, and metal—should further increase, since charges for pickup of other household garbage will double. Furthermore, over 90 percent of the respondents to a recent survey said that they would do more recycling in the future. Because of our town’s strong commitment to recycling, the available space in our landfill should last for considerably longer than predicted.
“Write a response in which you discuss what specific evidence is needed to evaluate the argument and explain how the evidence would weaken or strengthen the argument.”;
In this argument, the author claims that the available space in West Egg's landfill can last for longer than predicted by the consultants two years ago. To support his argument, the author points out that the total amount of recycled materials in the past two years are much more than that in previous years and that the charges for pickup will double. In addition, a recent survey about the willingness of the residents for recycling is cited. However, the argument can't be consider well-reasoned and we need to acquire more valid and clear information to better evaluate the argument.
To begin with, one of the pieces of evidence for us to better assess this argument is information about the total amount of the garbage. Common sense tells me that it is highly possible that the total amount of garbage including the recycling materials may increase due to the increase in the population and other social or economic factors. If that is the case, though the residents might recycle much more materials than ever before, the garbage which filled the landfill would increase as well. Unless the author can provide sufficient and convincing evidence to rule out this possibility, by no means could he/she conclude that the available space in their landfill can last longer.
Even if the author is able to offer evidence to prove that the total amount of the garbage will not increase, we also need to be offered another piece of evidence that can confirm the relationship between the higher charges for pickup of other household garbage and the increase in the amount of recycled material. There is a likelihood that the people know nothing about the rise of the charges and hence fail to respond as the author predicts. Even though they are well informed about this policy, perhaps they care little about the price change. In order to confirm the prediction that there will be an increase in the amount of recycled material next month, the author needs to provide firm evidence to eliminate these possible alternative explanations, otherwise the argument will be seriously weakened.
Last but not least, even if the evidence mentioned above can be provided, in order to confirm his conclusion, the author also needs to offer evidence about the validity and scope of the survey mentioned in the argument. Who conducted this survey? And was the number of the respondents large enough to ensure the representativeness of all the residents in West Egg? We just don't know. Moreover, it is possible that the survey was concerned with too many aspects of city life and contained only one question about the people's willingness to recycling. Without sufficient evidence to confirm the validity and representativeness of this survey, it can't reveal people's commitment to recycling and hence the conclusion that available space in the landfill will last for a longer time may be unpersuasive.
To sum up, the argument is ungrounded as it stands and fails to convince me that the available space in West Egg's landfill will last for longer time. To bolster his argument, the author needs to provide scientific, clear and sufficient information about the total amount of the garbage and substantiated evidence to strengthen the assumption that the higher charge for pickup can lead to more recycled materials. Furthermore, the validity and the representativeness of the survey should be proved with more evidence.
|
|
京公网安备11010202008513号 京ICP证101109号 京ICP备12012021号
发表于 2011-10-12 21:05:18
收藏
收藏
