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 of the West Egg Town Committee asserts that due to the town's adherence to recycling, the West Egg's landfill will not filled for appreciably longer period than it was forecasted. This conclusion is buttressed by the evidence which should be closely scrutinized in order to give a comprehensive estimation of the argument soundness.

First of all, we are told that local residents have recycled two times as much as they did before. However, the author avoids giving information about the initial volume of garbage recycled, perhaps the volume of the material recycled before was insignificant and in this case, the increase will be negligible as well. Additionally to it, the argument claims that the amount of the litter recycled will increase in the future due to the fact that charge for pickup of other garbage will twice as much as before. Despite the author's belief the prediction may be incorrect, for instance, people may resist and protest against the change or the increase will be too small to change dwellers' conduct. Moreover, even if the policy works and the amount of recycled material further enhances, we do not know what percentage such materials as paper, plastic and metal are. If these material only a small part of the garbage the available space in the landfill will not last long.

Besides, we know that a recent study has demonstrated that more than 90 per cent of local residents assert that they are going to recycle more in the future. Despite the fact that these data sound overwhelmingly, the survey has some loopholes. For instance, in the future is a ambiguous statement, perhaps they will have started to do it by 2050. Additionally to it, the desire to do something does not equal a real action. In other words, the likeliness exists that these respondents will not change their behavior soon as the author believes and thus this survey does not create a sound support for the author's conclusion.

Finally, the writer concludes that owing to the local residents' commitment to recycling, the West Egg's landfill will not be filled soon and the available space will last appreciably longer than it was predicted. However, the argument's writer tends to neglect industrial sector, perhaps the major originator of the local garbage is local business and manufacturing. Are these business committed to recycling? Probably, the answer on this question is "no"; consequently, the author's conclusion is not supported properly.

In conclusion, the writer of the argument avers that due to the possibility that town's residents are committed to recycling, the prediction of consultants will not come true; however, the argument does not prove that the alteration is significant enough to change the prediction. Moreover, the arguer concerns with households and neglects industrial sector which perhaps is the main source of garbage. Thus, the argument and conclusion is unwarranted.

Votes
Average: 7 (2 votes)
Essay Categories

Comments

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

argument 2 -- OK

argument 3 -- here better to accept that garbage disposal is for residents only. then how to argue?
----------------

Attribute Value Ideal
Score: 4.0 out of 6
Category: Good Excellent
No. of Grammatical Errors: 0 2
No. of Spelling Errors: 0 2
No. of Sentences: 20 15
No. of Words: 476 350
No. of Characters: 2395 1500
No. of Different Words: 217 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.671 4.7
Average Word Length: 5.032 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.713 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 180 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 129 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 101 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 63 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 23.8 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 9.867 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.7 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.295 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.519 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.073 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 5 5

Hello.
it is a piece of the prompt: "Because of our town's strong commitment to recycling, the available space in our landfill should last for considerably longer than predicted"

your question was: here better to accept that garbage disposal is for residents only. then how to argue?
The answer is:

Finally, the writer concludes that due to the local residents’ devotion to recycling the space which may be used for disposal of garbage will last longer significantly that it was forecasted. However, does the originator manages to bolster this conclusion? Despite the remarkable improvement in the volume of recycled garbage the percentage of these materials may be not enough to prevent the filling of the landfill. Moreover, the author boldly assumes that the consultants who made a forecast did not take into consideration these changes. Perhaps, the prediction was made base on these future alterations of local residents’ behavior. Thus the writer’s conclusion seems to be unreasonable and infirm.

Is it a good work?

Thank you for your corrections. Your recommendations are extremely helpful. I deeply appreciate your attention. Thank you.