标题: ARGUMENT67 fantasy 5日作业 互拍，修改者必回拍 [打印本页] 作者: weiweizhu 时间: 2005-9-6 13:12:34 标题: ARGUMENT67 fantasy 5日作业 互拍，修改者必回拍
题目：ARGUMENT 67 - The following appeared in a letter to the editor of a newspaper serving the villages of Castorville and Polluxton.
"Both the villages of Castorville and Polluxton have experienced sharp declines in the numbers of residents who pay property taxes. To save money and improve service, the two villages recently merged their once separate garbage collection departments into a single department located in Castorville, and the new department has reported few complaints about its service. Last year the library in Polluxton had 20 percent fewer users than during the previous year. It follows that we should now further economize and improve service, as we did with garbage collection, by closing the library in Polluxton and using the library in Castorville to serve both villages."
字数：430 用时：0:30:00 日期：2005-9-6
In the text, the arguer proposes a suggestion of closing the library in Pulluxton and making Castorville's serve both villages so as to save money and improve service. To substantiate his recommendation, the arguer lists the so-called successful example of garbage collection departments' mergence as evidence. However, the basement is ambiguous and the compariion is incomplete.
In the first place, the arguer unfairly assumes that the mergence of two garbage collection departments is truly satisfactory and less lost. For one thing, that few complaints about its service dose not necessarily mean better performance. Maybe quite a lot of complaints are not reported to ensure another combination or many of residents really complain frequently but not heard by the reporters.For another, merge two into a single one can not guarantee less fees. To tear down the tow old ones and build a new, larger one is necessary cost huge amount of money. In addition, transporting Polluxton's garbage to the village of Castorville also causes high expenditure. Without the exact statistic about the spending of replacing two with new one and the transportation fees and survey of citizens' attitude towards the new garbage collection department, to alerge that this action would save money and improve service is ungrounded.
Even taken for granted that the combination of garbage department true receive success, it still can not guarantee the same action would be suitable with respect to the library. Firstly, although last year in Polluxton, 20% decreasing happens in library use, yet just from the data of this particular one year can not definitely rule out it is a decline trend in need of library in Pulluxton. And what is more, lack of data on the Castorville's library condition, it is to hasty to generate that total need of library in two village is diminished.
Secondly, the arguer commits a false analogy to simply adopt the action using in dealing with garbage to the library. Two of them are so different in function and management. Garbage is served as everyday use but library is to cultivate the minds of citizens and provide a place for them to relax or study. Even it takes long hours to get to the Castorville’s garbage collection department, the citizens in Polluxton village have no choice but to reluctantly go a long way to throw their waste. When referring to library, remove it in Polluxton makes them unwilling to walk so far away to read books and thus harmful to the Polluxton peoples' mind
In conclusion, hasty generation and false analogy makes the argument inconvincible and ineffective to adopt.
最后时间来不及了，所以最后两段写得很参促
希望多提点意见，已经写好了也很难再想到什么可以批的地方了
[ Last edited by yogurt4 on 2005-9-6 at 17:20 ]作者: mmeiw 时间: 2005-9-6 16:34:52
In the first place, the arguer unfairly assumes that the mergence of two garbage collection departments is truly satisfactory and less lost. For one thing, that few complaints about its service dose not necessarily mean better performance. Maybe quite a lot of complaints are not reported to ensure another combination or many of residents really complain frequently but not heard by the reporters.For another, merging two into a single one can not guarantee less fees. To tear down the tow old ones and build a new, larger one is necessary cost huge amount of money. In addition, transporting Polluxton's garbage to the village of Castorville also causes high expenditure. Without the exact statistic about the spending of replacing two with new one and the transportation fees and survey of citizens' attitude towards the new garbage collection department, to alerge that this action would save money and improve service is ungrounded...(好！)...
Even taken for granted that the combination of garbage department true receive success, it still can not guarantee the same action would be suitable with respect to the library. Firstly, although last year in Polluxton, 20% decreasing happens in library use, yet just from the data of this particular one year can not definitely rule out..是排除可能性吗？应该是暗示吧？... (the possibility that) it is a decline trend in need of library in Pulluxton. And what is more...总觉得这句话是在提示说另一个原因而非总结？..., lack of data on the Castorville's library condition, it is to hasty to generate that total need of library in two village is diminished.
Secondly, the arguer commits a false analogy to simply adopt the action using in dealing with garbage to the library. Two of them are so different in function and management. Garbage is served as everyday use but library is to cultivate the minds of citizens and provide a place for them to relax or study. Even it takes long hours to get to the Castorville’s garbage collection department, the citizens in Polluxton village have no choice but to reluctantly go a long way to throw their waste. When referring to （When it comes to）library, remove it in Polluxton makes them unwilling to walk so far away to read books and thus harmful to the Polluxton peoples' mind作者: forevera 时间: 2005-9-6 23:14:50
In the text, the arguer proposes a suggestion of closing the library in Pulluxton and making Castorville's serve both villages so as to save money and improve service. To substantiate his recommendation, the arguer lists the so-called successful example of garbage collection departments' mergence as evidence. However, the basement is ambiguous and the compariion is incomplete.
In the first place, the arguer unfairly assumes that the mergence of two garbage collection departments is truly satisfactory and less lost. For one thing, that few complaints about its service dose not necessarily mean better performance. Maybe quite a lot of complaints are not reported to ensure another combination or many of residents really complain frequently but not heard by the reporters.For another, merge two into a single one can not guarantee less fees. To tear down the tow old ones and build a new, larger one is necessary cost huge amount of money. In addition, transporting Polluxton's garbage to the village of Castorville also causes high expenditure. Without the exact statistic about the spending of replacing two with new one and the transportation fees and survey of citizens' attitude towards the new garbage collection department, to alerge that this action would save money and improve service is ungrounded.分开写好点。。。。
Even taken for granted that the combination of garbage department true receive success, it still can not guarantee the same action would be suitable with respect to the library. Firstly, although last year in Polluxton, 20% decreasing happens in library use, yet just from the data of this particular one year can not definitely rule out it is a decline trend in need of library in Pulluxton. And what is more, lack of data on the Castorville's library condition, it is to hasty to generate that total need of library in two village is diminished.这2段写的比较乱。。。总体错误就是false analogy。。。这样分开也应该比较统一起来
Secondly，the arguer commits a false analogy to simply adopt the action using in dealing with garbage to the library. Two of them are so different in function and management. Garbage is served as everyday use but library is to cultivate the minds of citizens and provide a place for them to relax or study. Even it takes long hours to get to the Castorville’s garbage collection department, the citizens in Polluxton village have no choice but to reluctantly go a long way to throw their waste. When referring to library, remove it in Polluxton makes them unwilling to walk so far away to read books and thus harmful to the Polluxton peoples' mind
In conclusion, hasty generation and false analogy makes the argument inconvincible and ineffective to adopt.结尾太短了吧作者: weiweizhu 时间: 2005-9-6 23:28:48 标题: 结尾来不及写得说