Cause of（这是什么句式，没见过） some books rarely borrowed in the library have taken up the shelf space permanently, some newly published books has(have)no space to be placed(place) with more copies. The arguer put out(forward) an solution is to replace(that replacing) the rarely-borrowed books with the newly published novels, and in his mind(太不地道了) the opposition is ignorable. However, the arguer has misunderstood(改为“忽视了”是不是更好呢) the basic function of the library and has made his conclusion resting on incredible statistics.
First and foremost, for the function of the library, one way or another, is to provide the books for the readers,(非英语语法，呵呵) not only the recent novels, but also some old books and some precious copies for the particular readers. If the library has made（implemented） this replacement, it will be harmful for its basic function and will make the readers who need those books be(删掉) very disappointed. And if all the libraries have put out（这个词组是灭火的意思） similar policy（复数）, then where should those readers who need the books, may be the scientists and social analysts, referto, and it will eventually do great harm to the development of the whole society.
Moreover, the conclusion is not made on precise statistics and the arguer has not provide us with the exact ratio that how many people need to borrow the latest published books（与原文不符） and can not find them, if the ratio is too small,（另起一句） which is of great possibility, will make the proposed solution seemed to be ridiculous. To make his suggestion more credible the arguer should try to figure out the exact demands of the readers and try to get some useful suggestions from them, to a certain degree, the readers may be already to put out a feasible solution.
Last but not the least, cause of only one organization of about thirty people has showed their oppoisite attitudes with the proposition, the arguer thought the opposition is not the main stream and can be ignorable. However, to a certain degree, the arguer has not made a survey in the readers, and the fact may be that the majority of the readers are against with the proposition , and only a small number of them have carried it out so far. If the fact is that,（In this case） this solution will not make most of the readers contented.
To sum up, with the description above, we can see that the arguer is too haste to make the conclusion and has misunderstood the basic function of the library and go to the extreme. (删掉，你太偏激啦) Besides without available and credible statistics, we can not figured（时态） out the precise attitude of the readers. To make a feasible and sustainable solution, more statics（statistics） should be gathered and a wide(wider) survey is needed.作者: 给力 时间: 2011-1-2 21:05:07
Cause of some books rarely borrowed in the library have taken up the shelf space permanently, some newly published books has no space to be placed with more copies. The arguer put out an solution is to replace the rarely borrowed books with the newly published novels, and in his mind the opposition is ignorable. However, the arguer has misunderstood the basic function of the library and has made his conclusion on incredible statistics.
First and foremost, for the function of the library, one way or another, is to provide the books for the readers, not only the recent novels, but also some old books and some precious copies for the particular readers. If the library has made this replacement, it will be harmful for its basic function and will make the readers who need those books be very disappointed. And if all the libraries have put out similar policy, then where should those readers who need the books,may be the scientists and social analysts, referto,and it will eventually do great harm to the development of the whole society.
Moreover, the conclusion is not made on precise statistics and the arguer has not provide us with the exact ratio that how many people need to borrow the latest published books and can not find them, if the ratio is too small, which is of great possibility, will make the proposed solution seemed to be ridiculous. To make his suggestion more credible the arguer should try to figure out the exact demands of the readers and try to get some useful suggestions from them, to a certain degree, the readers may be already to put out a feasible solution.
Last but not the least, cause of only one organization of about thirty people has showed their oppoisite attitudes with the proposition, the arguer thought the opposition is not the main stream and can be ignorable. However, to a certain degree, the arguer has not made a survey in the readers, and the fact may be that the majority of the readers are against with the proposition , and only a small number of them have carried it out so far. If the fact is that, this solution will not make most of the readers contented.
To sum up, with the description above, we can see that the arguer is too haste to make the conclusion and has misunderstood the basic function of the library and go to the extreme. Besides without available and credible statistics, we can not figured out the precise attitude of the readers. To make a feasible and sustainable solution, more statics should be gathered and a wide survey is needed.作者: hanhongwei90 时间: 2011-1-2 23:21:54
Argume184
In the Bayhead Public Library, books that are rarely borrowed continue to take up shelf space year after year, while people who want to read a recent novel frequently find that the library's only copy is checked out. Clearly, the library's plan to replace books that are borrowed no more than once a year with sufficient copies of more recent books will solve this problem. The protest we have heard since this plan was made public has come from a small, and thus unrepresentative, group of some thirty people and so should therefore be ignored.
字数统计：432
Cause of some books rarely borrowed in the library have taken up the shelf space permanently, some newly published books has no space to be placed with more copies. The arguer put out an solution is to replace the rarely borrowed books with the newly published novels, and in his mind the opposition is ignorable. However, the arguer has misunderstood the basic function of the library and has made his conclusion on incredible statistics. (开头的事实阐述有些生硬)
First and foremost, for the function of the library, one way or another, is to provide the books for the readers, not only the recent novels, but also some old books and some precious copies for the particular readers. If the library has made this replacement, it will be harmful for its basic function and will make the readers who need those books be very disappointed. And if all the libraries have put out similar policy, then where should those readers who need the books, may be the scientists and social analysts, refer to, and it will eventually do great harm to the development of the whole society.
Moreover, the conclusion is not made on precise statistics and the arguer has not provide us with the exact ratio that how many people need to borrow the latest published books and can not find them, if the ratio is too small, which is of great possibility, will make the proposed solution seemed to be ridiculous. To make his suggestion more credible the arguer should try to figure out the exact demands of the readers and try to get some useful suggestions from them, to a certain degree, the readers may be already to put out a feasible solution.
Last but not the least, cause of only one organization of about thirty people has showed their oppoisite (opposite) attitudes with the proposition, the arguer thought the opposition is not the main stream and can be ignorable. However, to a certain degree, the arguer has not made a survey in the readers, and the fact may be that the majority of the readers are against with the proposition, and only a small number of them have carried it out so far. If the fact is that, this solution will not make most of the readers contented.
To sum up, with the description above, we can see that the arguer is too haste to make the conclusion and has misunderstood the basic function of the library and go to the extreme. Besides without available and credible statistics, we can not figured out the precise attitude of the readers. To make a feasible and sustainable solution, more statics should be gathered and a wide survey is needed.
Based on the unfounded evidence that the rarely borrowed books take up the unnecessary shelf space so that it is difficulty supplying readers sufficient copies of more recent books, the author leads us to believe the plan, replacing the books borrowed no more than once a year to the recent books,is so wise that protest should be ignored. 【It seems to be appealing when its reasoning first catches our eyes. However, this poor logic deducing process can hardly withstand test of further reflection. It omits some concerns which make it an unreliable statement. From logic perspectives, this argument suffers from three major flaws.】模板味太重，简化一点为好
To begin with, the times books been borrowed is not sufficient to imply these books are not popular among people. The author takes it for granted the fewer times the book are borrowed, the less important these books are. There is highly possibility that these books are tool books such as word dictionary, law dictionary which are indispensable for a library, though these are seldom brought out of library. What is more, it is entirely likely that these books are used just right in the library frequently, thus they are rarely borrowed. 【这句没明白什么意思】When taking these above and other probable situationsinto consideration , the plan to diminish the quantity of books rarely borrowed is not feasible.
Furthermore, even if the books seldom borrowed are really insignificant and take up space, which sets an obstacle for
pouring more copies of recent books into the library to satisfy the demand of readers. The plan to replace these books is not a good way to solve this problem. Why not enlarge the spare of the library or set a new branch in somewhere else? These ways can supply the readers sufficient copies of recent books without cutting down the number of books rarely borrowed which is still in need.
Last fallacy which I feel worthy to mention is that the pretest should be treated with emphasis as the existence of protest, especially from the thirty reveals the measure hurts certain groups of people【没懂，怎么两个谓语动词】and should be improved to become better accepted by wider public. If the voice of people who the library is aimed to serve is neglected,【这个反驳有点虚，能给提意见的应该就是关注图书馆的人了，也就很有可能是服务对象了，建议可反驳说：还有很多人不知道这个政策，知道了肯定是要反对或者有些人知道了但不想浪费时间去反对】how can the library wish to win credit and popularity among people in order to maintain its business?【反问句太强烈了，一篇文章里出现一次反问句就好了】So to benefit the readers, the library has no choice to take consideration of the protest and brings out a more proper method to solve the problem.
To sum up, to strength the reasoning of this argument,the author should have to provide more information to verify that books rarely borrowed is not important as well as that replacing these books to sufficient copies of recent books is of big advantage and is feasible【太长了，分两句】. In addition, the protest should be laid enough importance to put forward a more considerate and thorough method. If the factors discussed above are taken into account, the argument will be more convincing and logic.作者: lovelyzhouyang 时间: 2011-1-3 09:29:26
Argume184
In the Bayhead Public Library, books that are rarely borrowed continue to take up shelf space year after year, while people who want to read a recent novel frequently find that the library's only copy is checked out. Clearly, the library's plan to replace books that are borrowed no more than once a year with sufficient copies of more recent books will solve this problem. The protest we have heard since this plan was made public has come from a small, and thus unrepresentative, group of some thirty people and so should therefore be ignored.
字数统计：499
Based on the unfounded evidence that the rarely borrowed books take up the unnecessary shelf space so that it is difficulty supplying readers sufficient copies of more recent books, the author leads us to believe that the plan that books borrowed no more than once a year should give up space to the recent books is so wise that protest should be ignored. It seems to be appealing when its reasoning first catches our eyes. However, this poor logic deducing process can hardly withstand test of further reflection. It omits some concerns which make it an unreliable statement. From logic perspectives, this argument suffers from three major flaws.
To begin with, the times books been borrowed is not sufficient to imply these books are not popular among people. The author takes it for granted the fewer times the book are borrowed, the less important these books are. There is highly possibility that these books are tool books such as word dictionary, law dictionary which are indispensable for a library, though these are seldom brought out of library. What is more, it is entirely likely that these books are used just right in the library frequently, thus they are rarely borrowed. When taking into these above and other probable situations, the plan to diminish the quantity of books rarely borrowed is not feasible.
Furthermore, even if the books seldom borrowed are really insignificant and take up space, which sets an obstacle for more copies of recent books to pour into the library to satisfy the demand of readers. The plan to replace these books is not a good way to solve this problem. Why not enlarge the spare of the library or set a new branch in somewhere else? These ways can supply the readers sufficient copies of recent books without cutting down the number of books rarely borrowed which is still in need.
Last fallacy which I feel worthy to mention is that the pretest should be treated with emphasis as the existence of protest, especially from the thirty reveals the measure hurts certain groups of people and should be improved to become better accepted by wider public. If the voice of people who the library is aimed to serve is neglected, how can the library wish to win credit and popularity among people in order to maintain its business? So to benefit the readers, the library has no choice to take consideration of the protest and brings out a more proper method to solve the problem.
To sum up, to strength the reasoning of this argument, the author should have to provide more information to verify that books rarely borrowed is not important as well as that replacing these books to sufficient copies of recent books is of big advantage and is feasible. In addition, the protest should be laid enough importance to put forward a more considerate and thorough method. Is the factors discussed above is taken into account, the argument will be more convincing and logic.