: 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

In the given argument author concludes to the conclusion that space in landfill should last for considerably longer than predicted because of people’s strong commitment to recycling. The argument seems convincing and adequate but by close scrutiny we should understand there are so many flaws in the argument. To discuss all those flaws we must have to discuss all pros and cons of the above argument.

Firstly, during the past two years the town's residents have been recycling twice as much material as they did in previous years. But author fails give enough evidence to clarify this claim. We did not have any information about how much amount of garbage material these town resident were processing last two year. To strengthen this argument must have to provide enough evidence to above claim.

Secondly, 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. Author fails to explain actual pickup charges of garbage. It is not plausible to associate of increasing the pickup charges and increased recycling material.

Thirdly, author in argument says that over 90 percent of the respondents to a recent survey said that they would do more recycling in the future. Author fails to explain the validity and credulity of the respondent recent survey. It may be possible that survey can be done in particular area only. On how many people this survey was done? It may be possible that only on very small number of people this was done. To strengthen this argument author must have to show fairness in survey by presenting evidence.

Therefore, by enlightening some flaws in the argument leads to strong and convincing argument.