Please rate my argument essay. Thank you!

[SarahL]

Prompt:

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.

Response:

In the past two years, residents of West Egg have doubled the amount of material which they recycle. The author of this argument asserts that this will reduce the amount of waste in the town's landfill, allowing it to last longer than predicted. Unfortunately, the author does not provide sufficient evidence to prove that this will indeed be the case.

In his argument, the author assumes that the rate of recycling amoung residents will continue to increase over the next month. While residents have recycled twice as much in the past two years, the author does not provide information about the specific pattern of increase. It may be that, in the first year, residents recycled three times as much as normal, however, in the most recent year, they returned to their regular rate of recycling, and the author simply averaged the rates of these two years together. In this case, his argument would have no merit. The author claims that there has been a continuous trend of an increase in the rate of recycling, but without information about how the rate has evolved over time, there is no indication that residents will continue to recycle material rather than throw it away.

The author also asserts that the increase in garbage pickup charges will promote recycling amoung the residents. However, the reader is given no data about how many residents utilize the pickup services. If the service is used only sparingly, then there is no reason to suggest that an increase in cost would create any noticable difference in the rate of recycling. The increase may also drive residents to simply take the garbage to the landfill themselves, rather than continue to use the service. That is, of course, assuming that the increase in cost deters residence from using the service at all; the amount currently charged may be nominal, and the doubling of the cost may make little difference compared to the convenience of the service itself. To support his point, the author would need to provide evidence that the increase would not only be meaningful to residents, but also cause them to recycle materials rather than stop use of the service altogether. 

Another cirtical error the author makes is claiming that the survey indicates that residents will commit to recycling more in the future. He provides no information about who was surveyed, and when. The survey may have taken place in another town, and thus would indicate nothing about the oppinion of those living in West Egg. The term "recent" is also very relative; the survey may have taken place five years ago, which would be "recent" compared to surveys conducted before that, and would not be indicative of the current feelings of the townspeople. Additionally, the author would need to show that the survey did not encouraged a bias response from residents. For example, if it were conducted by a recycling comittee, this may have encouraged those surveyed to reply in the affirmative. Surveys may also indicate how the respondants would act under ideal circumstances, but not how they will actually behave. If the author were able to provide evidence that it was exclusively the townspeople were surveyed, that the results were unbiased and representative of their oppinion, and that the survey was conducted within the past year, he would be able to better prove his argument.  

At a cursory glance, the argument which the author presents seems to show that the rate at which residents will recycle will only continue to increase, and that less garbage will end up in the landfill as a result. However, upon further inspection, this claim needs the support of further evidence to become convincing.