In his memo, the mayor relies upon a range of evidence, including a survey and recycling statistics, to prove that the West Egg landfill will remain unfilled for longer than expected. Unfortunately for West Egg, the mayors logic involves several faulty assumptions that fail to persuade. The mayor argues, first of all, that residents have been recycling twice as much aluminum and paper for the past two years, which apparently the consultants did not take into consideration. This fact is hardly strong evidence that the overall garbage production rate has loweredafter all, what proportion of landfill volume does the aluminum and paper occupy? It may well be that other sources of garbage, i.e. glass and plastic, supply the bulk of the landfill mass, and in that event, an increase in aluminum and paper recycling may do little to lower West Eggs garbage production. Thus, for the argument to be valid, aluminum waste and paper waste comprise a significant proportion of landfill mass, such that more aluminum and paper recycling has actual benefits for space conservation. We also do not know how much the residents recycled to begin with. A doubling of a small reduction will still only bring a small reduction, and not reduce landfill waste. The overall consumption of West Eggs residents may have increased in the past two years, and a reduction in a single type of waste may not compensate for this increase. The mayor should provide statistics proving that overall consumption in West Egg is not rising. Next, the mayors assumption that an increase in garbage pickup fees will increase recycling levels and thus reduce landfill mass is ill-founded. It is equally possible that people will simply pay more to have their garbage picked up, or delivers their garbage to the dump personally. The cash-back incentives of recycling that already exist are considered fairly ineffectual; why should the inverse measure, an added expense in garbage pickup, be any different? The mayor should provide the results of garbage fee increase programs that have been implemented in other cities, before concluding that they will be effective in compelling residents to recycle. And finally, the mayor cites a survey in which over ninety-percent of the town respondents promise to do more recycling in the future. We must question how comprehensive and representative the survey wasit may have been taken of the mayors ten closest friends, for example, and thus would not indicate a true committment to recyling on the part of the town as a whole. Even if we accept this piece of evidence, it is hardly compelling: we must ask how much more recycling the residents will do? Will it be enough to reduce landfill mass significantly? Most critically, how can we be certain that a promise made in a survey of this type can be trusted? The mayor should clearly find some reliable and conclusive statistics to augment the survey has provided regarding the residents commitment to increasing their recycling practices. Without this evidence, his argument remains baseless, leaving so many questions unanswered that it is scarcely persuasive.
在备忘录中，市长依靠一系列的证据，包括回收的调查统计，证明西卵的垃圾填埋场将比预期更长的时间仍然空缺。不幸的是，西方的鸡蛋，市长的逻辑涉及几个错误的假设，未能说服。市长说，首先，居民已经回收的两倍多的铝和纸，在过去的两年里，这显然是顾问没有考虑到。这一事实几乎没有有力的证据表明，整体的垃圾生产率下降后，垃圾填埋量的比例是铝和纸占据？它可能也是其他来源的垃圾，即玻璃和塑料，供应散装垃圾填埋场的质量，和事件，增加在铝和纸张回收可能无助于降低西卵的垃圾生产。因此，对于有效的参数，铝废料和废纸的垃圾填埋场，包括一个显着的比例，这样，更多的铝和纸张回收的空间保护的实际利益。我们也不知道居民可以开始用多少钱。一个小的减少增加了一倍，仍然只会带来一个小的减少，而不是减少垃圾填埋场的浪费。西卵的居民的整体消费量可能在过去两年中有所增加，而减少的一个单一类型的废物可能无法弥补这一增长。市长应该提供统计数据，证明在西鸡蛋的消费量并没有上升。下一步，市长的假设，增加垃圾回收费将提高回收水平，从而减少垃圾填埋场的质量是不成立的。同样有可能的是，人们只需支付更多的垃圾来收集垃圾，或者把垃圾送到垃圾场。返现金回收利用已经存在的激励被认为是相当无效的；为什么要反措施，在垃圾收集的额外费用，会有什么不同吗？市长应该提供的垃圾收费项目已经实施的结果，在其他城市，在结论之前，他们将是有效的，在令人信服的居民回收。最后，市长引用了一项调查，其中超过百分之九十的城镇受访者承诺在未来做更多的回收利用。我们必须如何全面和有代表性的调查是它可能已采取的市长的10个最亲密的朋友，例如，因此将不显示真正的承诺回收镇的部分作为一个整体。即使我们接受这一证据，这是很难令人信服：我们必须问多少回收的居民会做什么？它是足够的，以减少垃圾填埋场显着？最重要的是，我们如何能保证在这一类型的调查中做出的承诺是可信的？市长应该清楚地找到一些可靠的和确凿的统计数据，以加强调查，提供了关于居民的承诺，以提高他们的回收利用。没有这方面的证据，他的论点是毫无根据的，留下许多悬而未决的问题，这是很有说服力。