The argument is not well reasoned at all, and it might be wise for Walnut Groves town council to turn to ABC Disposal. To begin with, despite EZs weekly working frequency is as twice as ABCs, yet no sign has been displayed to prove that the advantage is necessary and fictional. For instance, if the towns garbage amount is under a particularly lower scale, which merely reaches the quantity of once disposal from ABC and hence the relatively once more from EZ is just a futile plethora. Also, even if twice disposal is applicable, it still deserves to doubt whether most citizens would like usual to choose EZ when taking into account the price of its service has been increased by $500 a month. Most citizens is highly possible to pick up a company that can offer best services while calling for relatively little money, for saving the extra $500, which to some extent is dispensable, I think, most citizens can cope with some easily handled trash with their own methods instead of singly relying on the disposal company. And another crucial point I cast great discretion on is whether the survey made last year is the persuasive reflection of the whole citizens actual attitudes. The major deniable spot is the surveys sampling size and accordingly the ultimate respondents echoing the questions. Visualize the citizens of Walnut town are no less than 500 thousands, but ironically only the 5 hundred ones have the fortune to be asked the question and in the end the real available records making some senses are less than the 10% of the interviewers, namely the upper limit is only 50 people. Let alone whether these answers have the widely applicable representative, just judging about the number of respondents we can have justifiable rights to disregard the validity of this survey. Almost to forget to point out, that the freshly ordered 20 trucks of EZ cannot add another ponderous stake onto the balance, on the contrary, it might exacerbate the impressions of EZ in peoples mind. Buying new trucks would ineluctably consume the companys property, and to take this disburse back the company must put some additional measures for compensation, thereby increasing the fees can lead the citizens to obtain the most strong conviction of loading the economic debt onto their shoulders, which finally ruins the tiny fantasy prone to the EZ. So the arguers recommendation is just nothing but a cheap propaganda to throw to the vast residents a deceptive illusion. I believe, in general, any one having look through these vulgar tricks full of vague information and implicit causal claims like me would be likely to accept the town councils decision, after all it is more sensible than the arguer suggests.
这一说法没有得到充分的理由，它可能是明智的，核桃林的镇议会转向农行处理。首先，尽管EZ的每周工作频率为ABC的两倍，但没有迹象显示来证明优势是必要的，虚构的。例如，如果镇上的垃圾量特别低的尺度下，仅仅达到数量一旦处置从ABC因此相对再一次从EZ只是徒劳的多。另外，即使二次处理是可行的，它仍然值得怀疑是否多数国民都会像往常一样选择EZ时，考虑到其服务的价格已经增加了500美元一个月。大多数市民极有可能拿起一个公司，可以提供最好的服务，同时调用资金相对较少，节省了额外的$ 500，这一定程度上是可有可无的，我认为，大多数公民能够应付一些容易处理垃圾用自己的方法，而不是单独依靠处理公司。而另一个关键问题是，去年的调查是否是对整个市民实际态度的有说服力的反映。主要可现场调查的抽样规模，因此最终的受访者呼应的问题。可视化公民核桃镇是不少于500万，但具有讽刺意味的是只有5百的财富被问到最后真正可用的记录做一些感官小于10%的面试官，即上限只有50人。仅就这些答案是否具有广泛适用的代表性，只不过，我们可以判断，我们可以有正当的权利，不理会这项调查的有效性。几乎忘了指出，这刚订购了20卡车的EZ不能添加另一个笨重的股份到平衡，相反，它可能会加剧欧元区在人们心目中的印象。购买新卡车将不可避免地消耗公司的财产，并借此支付后，公司必须把一些额外的措施补偿，从而提高费用，可以导致公民获得最强烈的信念的经济债务加载到他们的肩膀，最终废墟的小幻想倾向的EZ。所以，作者的建议是只不过是一个廉价的宣传，把广大居民一个虚假的幻象。我相信，在一般情况下，任何有看通过这些低俗的把戏全模糊信息和隐含的因果索赔像我会是可能接受的市镇理事会的决定，毕竟，它是更明智的比arguer认为。