[a习作temp] Argument67 图书馆合并 [复制链接]

安婧
UID：2156480

特级会员

Rank: 6 Rank: 6

声望: 0
寄托币: 2409
注册时间: 2005-11-10
精华: 0
帖子: 5

电梯直达

楼主

发表于 2005-12-30 16:19:09 |只看该作者 |倒序浏览

Argument67 (630)
The following appeared in a letter to the editor of a mewspaper serving the villages of Castorville and Polluxton.
“Both the villages of castorville and Polluxtom 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 Pollluxton had 20percent 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 Casrorcille to serve both villages.”

提纲：
1、投诉少！＝质量好
2、错误类比。垃圾收集部门合并成功！＝图书馆合并成功
3、合并不一定会节省开支。

The arguer advises to close the library in polluxtox (P) and use the library in Castorville (C) to serve both villages in order to further economize and improve service, because the incorporation of the garbage collection departments of P and C is successful. But, the evident the arguer shows us cannot support his or her point.

  First, the arguer considers that the incorporation is successful because the new department has reported few complaints about its service. However the data is not believable, because it is offered by the new garbage collection department itself. A new department needs a good reputation, so it could report fewer data of the complaints about the garbage collection department, in order to leave a wonderful impression to its customers. Even if the data which is reported by the department is true, the few complaints about the service do not mean the service offered by new department is satisfactory. Perhaps the number of complaints about its service is large per day, but the total of them is small, because the department has not been open for a long time and the residents there do not know well about it. Moreover, even if the number of complaints is fewer now, we could not imply the number of the future is fewer too. When something is new, the manager will show the most perfect part to the mass, yet with the time passes, the service of the new department would return other side possibly. Hence, the arguer cannot make me believe the incorporation of the garbage department is successful through the evident in the letter.

  Second, the arguer attempt to make us believe that the incorporation of the libraries of P and C will be successful, because of the success of the incorporation of the garbage collection departments of those two villages. But, the service ways of the garbage collection department and the library are so different. The garbage collection department goes to each community to collect garbage, so it does not make a large affect to the convenience of the customers, while the incorporate library would leave some trouble to its customers, because they must go to the library themselves to gain the service, unless the library offer the sending book service. If the library in P is closed, not the whole P’s customers must go to the new library in C considering the distance between the two villages. Maybe, some people are lazy to go so far to read books, some people think the traffic between his or her home and the library is inconvenient, or the kids and olds cannot travel(用travel行吗？) so long distance alone. Thereby, I do not consider the incorporation of the library is feasible.

  Finally, the goal the arguer wants to close the library in P is to save money, but in my opinion, the incorporation cannot save money at all. On the one hand, if the library in C proffers service to the customers from two villages, the library will be redecorated to contain more readers even build a new building. It would spend the government too much money. On the other hand, the close of the library in P would lead many people lose their work, who used work in the library of P. Then, the government would spend the welfare for them. So I need more information to believe that the incorporation could save money for the government really.

  I cannot agree with the arguer to close the library in P to save money. The arguer needs to show us more necessary information to cite his or her point, such as the number of the complaints per day, whether the reader used in P go to the library in C, and expenditure budget after incorporation.

雅燃：精致生活，从此雅燃。
经典风：聆听经典，聆听不朽。
格外安婧·怀念那年的阳光

回应
0

使用道具举报

wendy-wang821
UID：2167765

初级会员

Rank: 3 Rank: 3

声望: 0
寄托币: 469
注册时间: 2005-12-16
精华: 0
帖子: 0

沙发

发表于 2005-12-31 22:01:56 |只看该作者

修改不知道适合不，仅供参考

The arguer advises to close the library in polluxtox (P) and use the library in Castorville (C) to serve both villages in order to further economize and improve service, because the incorporation of the garbage collection departments of P and C is successful. But, the evident the arguer shows us cannot support his or her point.

  First, the arguer considers that the incorporation is successful because the new department has reported few complaints about its service. However the data is not believable, because it is offered by the new garbage collection department itself. [调查不可信因为要掩饰] A new department needs a good reputation,[then] so it could report fewer data[a small quantities of –少量的] of the complaints about the garbage collection department, in order to leave a wonderful impression to its customers. Even if the data which is reported by the department is true, the few complaints about the service do not mean the service offered by new department is satisfactory. Perhaps the number of complaints about its service is large per day, but the total of them is small, because the department has not been open for a long time and the residents there do not know well about it.[这是批驳他的关键点] Moreover, even if the number of complaints is fewer now, we could not imply the number of the future is fewer too. When something is new, the manager will show the most perfect part to the mass, yet with the time passes, the service of the new department would return other side possibly. [非常好的一句，实用]Hence, the arguer cannot make me believe the incorporation of the garbage department is successful through the evident in the letter.这一段不错！

Second, the arguer attempt to make us believe that the incorporation of the libraries of P and C will be successful, because of the success of the incorporation of the garbage collection departments of those two villages. But, the service ways of the garbage collection department and the library are so different. The garbage collection department goes to each community to collect garbage, so it does not make a large affect to the convenience of the customers, while the incorporate library would leave some trouble to its customers, because they must go to the library themselves to gain the service, unless the library offer the sending book service. [要是能分开写就好了：前面说垃圾服务方式；后面先让步，再批说人们要亲自去，这样看得清楚明了。]If the library in P is closed, not the whole P’s customers must go to the new library in C considering the distance between the two villages. Maybe, some people are lazy to go so far to read books, some people think the traffic between his or her home and the library is inconvenient, or the kids and olds cannot travel(用travel行吗？) so long distance alone. Thereby, I do not consider the incorporation of the library is feasible.[travel in this place seems unreasonable, for this term means 走动时是vi.,后面不跟宾语应该是旅游，这里改改吧.是想说他们也不方便走那么远的路吗？我想了一个：or it is possible that the parents of little children as well as families of seniors regard their reading out solely in the distanced library as a way of insecurity.不知道可不可以。]
  Finally, the goal the arguer wants to close the library in P is to save money, but in my opinion, [客观点说，这个短语最好不要用噢。] the incorporation cannot save money [achieve what the author conceived previously]at all.[our goal is 在考场少些少想，尽量写套话，不知道对不对呢？] On the one hand, if the library in C proffers service to the customers from two villages, the library will be redecorated to contain more readers even build [build 替换成新词吧]a new building. [好！！]It would spend the government too much money.[可以加些，感觉没说完。] On the other hand, the close of the library in P would lead many people lose their work[有些不够专业了，看看能不能用上：increasing the unemployment in P ，但这个观点非常好], who used work in the library of P.[有些罗嗦噢] Then, the government would spend the welfare for them. So I need more information to believe that the incorporation could save money for the government really.这一段写得不如前面好，可能是由于最后一段吧，因为uneconomical and impossible to improve the services 原因就两个：1钱花在装修和盖新楼/2，导致失业[要是你时间多，还可以涮他一把，如：赔偿失业者的抚恤金unemployment compensation也不少钱呢]。还可能买新的设备，购置新书，都是一笔不小的开支。你这段败笔在“It would spend the government too much money.”要是能说说开支很大之类的话会比较实用，也让老美觉得地道，我查了查，好像有个substantive expenditure.
  I cannot agree with the arguer to close the library in P to save money. The arguer needs to show us more necessary information to cite his or her point, such as the number of the complaints per day, whether the reader used in P go to the library in C, and expenditure budget after incorporation
你再想想吧，我改得并不一定合理。总体来说你的论点鲜明，虽不独到，但实际管用，继续努力哦。