A memorandum from the chairperson of West Egg Town Council suggests that the space available in the West Egg landfill area should last considerably longer than predicted. In order to support such a claim, the chairperson has provided evidence that seem to bolster the assertion made by the chairperson, regarding the landfill area that is left in West Egg. The chairperson's claim as well as the evidence seem convincing at the first glance, although a closer look might unearth a few alternate possibilities or discrepancies which might undermine the chairperson's claim.
Firstly, the arguer has pointed towards a prediction made by consultants regarding the space available in the landfills of West Egg. The prediction was made two years ago, which stated that landfills in West Egg will be completely full in five years time. The arguer seems to disagree with such a prediction by stating that residents of West Egg are keen recyclers and hence, the landfills will not fill up for a long period of time. The arguer has based this assertion on data that has been collected during the past two years. Just looking at the past data does not ensure that the same trend will continue for the next three years as well. What if there is a drop in the amount of waste being recycled in West Egg? This would undermine the chairperson's initial claim, and it might be the case that the consultants' prediction turns out to be correct and West Egg has no landfill space left, three years down the line.
Secondly, the arguer hints towards a survey conducted among the residents of West Egg, wherein ninety-percent of the respondents have claimed that they will recycle at a greater level in the future. Such a survey does not hold enough substance to justify the chairperson's assertion regarding the availability of landfill area in the future. The survey could have been conducted in a haphazard way, wherein the respondents have agreed to recycle, just for the sake of the survey. The honesty with which the survey was answered by the residents of West Egg is questionable. As a result, it cannot be categorically stated if the residents of West Egg will recycle larger quantities of waste in the future. This could call into question, the chairperson's position.
Lastly, the arguer has stated that West Egg are taking measures to ensure that residents recycle maximum amount of their waste. The chairperson has mentioned that the charges for pickup of other household garbage will double from next month. The chairperson seems confident that such a move will encourage residents to recycle maximum amount of their waste. The arguer fails to specify in the memorandum, the money charged initially, and the money that will be charged next month onward for pick up of other household garbage. If the money charged earlier was infinitesimal, then doubling the charge would not act as big a deterrent as the chairperson expects. It could be possible that the residents have now become tired of the process of waste recycling and hence find it it easier to pay extra money for picking up of household waste. If such a situation crops up, it would seriously undercut the arguer's position and people would probably doubt his final claim.
In sum, the evidence provided by the chairperson are dubious and erroneous in nature. They hint towards several alternate scenarios which call into question the chairperson's prediction. As a result, it cannot be categorically stated if the chairperson's prediction, regarding the availability of landfill area in West Egg would hold true.
A memorandum from the chairperson of West Egg Town Council suggests that the space available in the West Egg
landfill
area
should last
considerably
longer than predicted. In order to support such a claim, the chairperson has provided evidence that
seem
to bolster the assertion made by the chairperson, regarding the
landfill
area
that is
left
in West Egg. The chairperson's claim
as well
as the evidence
seem
convincing at the
first
glance, although a closer look might unearth a few alternate possibilities or discrepancies which might undermine the chairperson's claim.
Firstly
, the arguer has pointed towards a
prediction
made by consultants regarding the space available in the
landfills
of West Egg. The
prediction
was made
two years ago, which
stated
that
landfills
in West Egg will be completely full in five years time. The arguer
seems
to disagree with such a
prediction
by stating that
residents
of West Egg are keen recyclers and
hence
, the
landfills
will not fill up for a long period of time.
The
arguer has based this assertion on data that has
been collected
during the past two years.
Just
looking at the past data does not ensure that the same trend will continue for the
next
three years
as well
. What if there is a drop in the amount of
waste
being recycled
in West Egg? This would undermine the chairperson's initial claim, and it might be the case that the consultants'
prediction
turns out to be correct and West Egg has no
landfill
space
left
, three years down the line.
Secondly
, the arguer hints towards a
survey
conducted among the
residents
of West Egg, wherein ninety-percent of the respondents have claimed that they will
recycle
at a greater level in the future. Such a
survey
does not hold
enough
substance to justify the chairperson's assertion regarding the availability of
landfill
area
in the future. The
survey
could have
been conducted
in a haphazard way
, wherein the respondents have
agreed
to
recycle
,
just
for the sake of the
survey
. The honesty with which the
survey
was answered
by the
residents
of West Egg is questionable.
As a result
, it cannot be
categorically
stated
if the
residents
of West Egg will
recycle
larger quantities of
waste
in the future. This could call into question, the chairperson's position.
Lastly
, the arguer has
stated
that West Egg are taking measures to ensure that
residents
recycle
maximum amount of their
waste
. The chairperson has mentioned that the charges for pickup of other household garbage will double from
next
month. The chairperson
seems
confident that such a
move
will encourage
residents
to
recycle
maximum amount of their
waste
.
The
arguer fails to specify in the memorandum, the
money
charged
initially
, and the
money
that will
be charged
next
month onward for pick up of other household garbage. If the
money
charged earlier was infinitesimal, then doubling the charge would not act as
big
a deterrent as the chairperson
expects
. It could be possible that the
residents
have
now
become tired of the process of
waste
recycling and
hence
find
it it
easier to pay extra
money
for picking up of household
waste
. If such a situation crops up, it would
seriously
undercut the arguer's position and
people
would
probably
doubt his final claim.
In sum, the evidence provided by the chairperson are dubious and erroneous in nature. They hint towards several alternate scenarios which call into question the chairperson's
prediction
.
As a result
, it cannot be
categorically
stated
if the chairperson's
prediction
, regarding the availability of
landfill
area
in West Egg would hold true.