In this letter of recommendation, the city manager of Bridge Bay (BB) recommends continuin
g the contract with Arko (A) to restore the number of visitors to the local beach. To supp
ort this conclusion, the author mentions that BB changed the garbage collection company fr
om A to Satellite Waste Corporation (S), leading to reduced visitors to the local beach. I
n contrast, the nearby beaches under the service of A had record-breaking visitor numbers.
Although the author’s arguments have some validity, some questions need to be answered. T
he answers to these questions will either strengthen or weaken the author’s argument.First
, we need to know the relationship between Company S and the decline in visitors and their
complaints about the trash situation. Specifically, did the lack of work by Company S cau
se the deterioration of the litter situation at the local beaches? If the answer is no, fo
r example, tourists became too clean, and their sensitivity to trash increased even though
the level of trash remained the same. Also, the declining morals of tourists may play a r
ole in bringing more litter. Therefore, we cannot attribute the increase in litter complai
nts to Company S, and thus the author’s argument would be weakened. Apart from that, is it
possible that Company S is causing the decrease in tourists? Perhaps the number of touris
ts is not high per se, and even a 50% drop is not a significant drop in numbers and could
be considered a natural decline, unrelated to the company. Alternatively, factors such as
climate change and the competitive advantage of proximity to beaches are causing tourists
to be reluctant to visit local beaches. If this is the case, the author’s conclusion would
be overturned. However, if the above does not happen, then the author’s view is strengthe
ned.Second, should we attribute the record-breaking number of visitors to the adjacent bea
ches to Company A? the local beaches may be too underwhelming, causing customers to natura
lly choose nearby beaches. In addition, a record number of visitors does not mean that the
number of visitors is really high, and this does not mean that Company A is competent. If
the above happens, the author’s conclusion will be weakened. Otherwise, it is shored up.F
inally, even if Company S is not able to work and the neighboring beach has a rise in tour
ists because of Company A, it is still necessary to know the feasibility and effectiveness
of the option of restoring the contract with Company A. For example, it is possible that
Company A’s treatment of the local beaches also led to a decline in the number of visitors
or complaints about trash, and that is why the contract with Company A was terminated las
t year. In addition, even if Company A did manage the local beaches effectively before, so
me objective factors (local climate, quality of tourists, competition from other beaches)
may make it impossible to do anything even if Company A is returned. If any of the aforeme
ntioned scenarios are true, the author’s conclusion is still weakened. Otherwise, the auth
or’s conclusion will be strengthened.To sum up, while the author’s recommendation may be v
alid to some extent, there are a number of questions regarding his lines of reasoning that
require further analysis. The argument could end up being pretty convincing or invalid in
the end, depending on the answers to those questions.