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 pa

The argument put forward in the memorandum by the chairperson of the West Egg Town Council arouses confidence that the available space in the landfill will last for a long time. It bases its conclusion on the premise that recycling awareness is growing among people and it is sure to increase in the forthcoming years. This argument seems plausible at the first instant. On scrupulous analysis, however, it is found to be rife with holes and assumptions. A valid stand can be taken on this argument only after the evidence required to evaluate the argument is thoroughly analyzed.

First of all, the chairperson quotes that the consultants predicted the landfill to be filled within five years. However, the reliability of the consultants and the reasoning behind their forecast for the subsequent five years etc.. must be established. Moreover, the author quotes a contradiction that for the past two years, the residents have been recycling twice the amount of waste compared to previous years. This does not preclude that this trend will continue for the remaining three years. Hence, the basis on which the consultant's claim is summarily dismissed must be known. Only then a clear idea can be arrived out of these contradictory statements.

Secondly, the author assumes that most of the residents will not be able to afford the increased charges for garbage pickup. He commits 'correlation-causation' fallacy by stating that increased charges for pickup will goad the people to recycle the wastes. Above all, it is not clear on how the doubled charges for pickup of 'other' wastes will affect the disposal of wastes which can be recycled. Though the author quotes paper, plastic and metal to be examples of materials which can be recycled, he omits several other materials which are prone to recycling. Therefore more details regarding the economic status of the concerned society, their preferences and the relation between pickup charges and recycling must be provided in order to substantiate the author's claim.

Thirdly, the author commits the fallacy of 'believing the majority' which is misunderstood in this context. He states that 90 percent of the respondents prefer to indulge in more recycling in the future. In spite of the quoted percentage, the actual number of people involved in the survey must be mentioned. Moreover, the survey respondents must comprise people from all parts of the town. Only then the result of 90 percent can be persuasive. Finally, the author reaches a hasty conclusion mentioning that the town's strong commitment to recycling will help the landfill last for a long time. Even if the town is strongly committed in it's ideals, the people must be ready to strictly adhere to the proposed guidelines. Also, the landfill must be preserved properly and nourished timely so as it does not become contaminated. These kinds of evidence must be provided by the chairperson to make his prediction worthwhile.

Thus, the argument by the chairperson of West Egg Town Council is seriously undermined with the lack of evidence concerning a variety of factors: authenticity and reliability of the consultants; economic standing of West Egg Town's residents; relation between wastes which can be disposed and recycled; number of people participating in the survey and the total population; ways in which Town's strong commitment will lead to preservation of landfill surpassing the other required factors. Unless these evidence are furnished, the argument by the chairperson will remain erroneous and prone to misinterpretation.