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 pas

Essay topics:

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.

The chairperson predicted that the landfill of the town would be full in five years. However, the forecast was made two years ago and now he/she is anticipating that the landfill would last longer than expected. During that two years, residents doubled the amount which they recycle the garbage. The chairperson is predicting more recycling since the cost for other household garbage pickup would double. Moreover, more than 9 out of 10 people responded that they would recycle more in the future in a survey. Even though the residents' willingness to recycle more is admirable, it does not guarantee that the landfill would last longer than forecasted.

The arguer suggested residents is recycling twice as much material compared to two years ago. However, the arguer fails to show evidence connecting increase in recycle and availability of the landfill. Household arbage consisting of recyclable and other garbage, additional recycling does not necessarily imply less other garbage. If the total household garbage increased so much that amount of trash buried in the landfill can rise even with more recycling. Therefore, the chairperson is ought to adduce statistical evidence that shows the decrease in household trash reaching to the landfill to strengthen his claim.

Unlike what chairperson asserted, the rise in garbage pickup fee might not affect the amount of recycled material. If the garbage pickup fee was originally small enough that the doubled fee does not influence household's decision-making process, the household would continue to recycle just the amount they have been doing. Even if the cost is considerable, the household can be inelastic in trash disposal, which means a change in the cost of trash pickup does not affect how much they throw out their trash. Therefore, any evidence showing the elasticity of household trash disposal and current pickup fee level is required to make the memorandum clearer.

The whole points made through the memorandum only focus on household generated garbage. However, nowhere in the memorandum says West Egg's landfill only collects trash from households. To validate the memorandum, the arguer should suggest evidence showing that the landfill is only or mostly filled with household trash. Industry garbage is usually humongous in amount and could be filling most of the landfill. Without considering industry trash, the chairperson cannot adequately foresee how fast the landfill would be full in the future.

Setting other things equal, the landfill would be filled up slower with more households recycling. Still, the arguer failed to list evidence that reveals the total amount of household trash is smaller or, at least, the same as two years ago. How the rise in garbage pickup fee would affect households is also not suggested. Industry garbage is totally ignored in the argument. Evidences showing above listed factors would affect the validity of the memorandum.

Votes
Average: 7 (2 votes)
This essay topic by users
Post date Users Rates Link to Content
2019-08-04 sanket007 69 view
2019-08-03 sanket007 86 view
2019-01-05 swappy1996 23 view
2018-12-29 missionfission 26 view
2018-08-26 bokachodajamy 39 view
Essay Categories
Essays by user davidjang7 :

Comments

residents is recycling twice
residents are recycling twice

Sentence: Household arbage consisting of recyclable and other garbage, additional recycling does not necessarily imply less other garbage.
Error: arbage Suggestion: No alternate word

----------------
argument 1 -- OK

argument 2 -- OK

argument 3 -- not OK. Maybe the mount for Industry garbage is stable.

the argument goes here:

Furthermore, over 90 percent of the respondents to a recent survey said that they would do more recycling in the future.

1. the wish is not equal to action
2. maybe more people will move to the city
----------------

Attribute Value Ideal
Score: 4.0 out of 6
Category: Good Excellent
No. of Grammatical Errors: 0 2
No. of Spelling Errors: 1 2
No. of Sentences: 25 15
No. of Words: 465 350
No. of Characters: 2423 1500
No. of Different Words: 202 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.644 4.7
Average Word Length: 5.211 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.602 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 187 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 142 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 102 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 64 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 18.6 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 5.946 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.44 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.341 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.521 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.123 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 5 5