Argument67 第3篇 让砖头来得更猛烈些吧！
------摘要------
作者：寄托家园作文版普通用户 共用时间：32分18秒 448 words
从2008年1月17日13时16分到2008年1月17日13时32分
------题目------
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.'
------正文------
In this editorial, its author claims in order to save money and improve service, the two villages of Castorville and Polluxton should combine two separated libraries into one as they did with garbage collection. To support such claims, the arguer cites the reduced reported complaints about garbage collections' service after combination, and points out the trend of declining in residents. Close scrutiny of evidence mentioned above, some logical flaws in critical respects prevent it to be forceful and convincing.
A threshold problem has to do with the credibility of improved service of garbage collection department as well as the effectiveness in economizing cost. Given the evidence provide by the arguer, there is a decline in reported complaints. Maybe some implicit words hidden in such doubtful expression, whether there exist some unreported ones or larger amount of unfounded ones? If so, arguer's assertion on improving services brings nothing to his/her recommendation. What is more, there is no evidence on the decline in economizing the cost in garbage collection. For that matter, it's entirely possible that due to longer distance to get garbage from every resident compared to before, it will take more cost in terms of time and money to get all work done.
Secondly, granted that the emergence will work well at less cost, the arguer makes an oversimplified analogy between garbage collections and libraries without considering their nature's disparities. Admittedly, less residents amounts to less cost in dealing with garbage. However, we could not extend to it embrace the situation of libraries. Perhaps residents in Castorville becomes more interested in reading books and increase their times to libraries. This increase in Castorville may offset the decrease in Polluxton, which eventually increase the burden of the library. For that matter, the cost on library is sure to increase, not as the arguer claims.
Finally, even assuming that there is a decline in the cost of library, whether the combination will demean the quality of serves is still a question? After all, improving services, at least ensuring the same is another object on which the arguer focuses.
Perhaps to economize the cost means to shorten the open times or employ fewer workers.
Either of scenarios will demean the quality of service, which is against the arguers original promise in the editorial.
To sum up, some unsubstantiated assumptions weaken the argument's strengthen of logic as it stands. Such a recommendation will be strengthened if the author can provide compelling evidence on the combination of two libraries will be exactly the same in improving and economizing cost as garbage collection department does. To better assess its validity in the future, more detailed materials on the residents' responses should be helpful.