[a习作temp] argument67 [Jet]小组第八次作业补交的作业,欢迎回拍 [复制链接]

daisylee08
UID: 2416478

新手上路

Rank: 1

声望: 0
寄托币: 103
注册时间: 2007-10-21
精华: 0
帖子: 0

电梯直达

楼主

发表于 2008-2-24 15:19:16 |只看该作者 |倒序浏览

argument67
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."

In this letter, the author recommends that it is necessary for Polluxton and Castorville to close the library in Polluxton and only use the library in Castorville to serve both villages, just as they did recently with the two villages' garbage collection, in order to save money and improve service. To support this recommendation, the author points out that after the two villages combined their garbage collection departments, few complaints has been reported. In addition, the author cites that during the past year, users of library in Polluxton had reduced by 20 percent. However, the argument suffers from several critical flaws.

First of all, the author unfairly assumes that combination of the two villages' garbage collection departments is proved to be successful. Actually, few complaints reported do not indicate that residents of the two villages are generally satisfied with this change. Perhaps the government do not offer an effective organization for residents' complaint. Moreover, perhaps people have not yet found the inconvenience brought by the combination, which might would reveal in the future. And the author fails to provide clear information about the new department compared with the departments before. It is entirely possible that the combination do not achieve the goal of saving money by reason of increasing fees of garbage's transportation from Polluxton to Castorville. Without ruling out these possibilities, the author cannot convince me that it is reasonable for the two villages to merge their garbage collection departments, let alone to combine their libraries.

Secondly, even if the new department of garbage collection is a success, the author fails to account for certain significant differences between collecting garbage and using library. For example, although the new garbage collection department is located in Castorville, residents of Polluxton rarely feel inconvenient; nevertheless, if the library in Polluxton closed, residents living there have to travel to Castorville for using library, which wastes not only people's time but also their money. Consequently, residents of Polluxton will certainly complain for these trouble, while those who live in Castorville might whine about the library crowd with people.

Finally, the author's conclusion depends on the unjustifiable assumption that the number of users of the library in Polluxton will unceasingly decrease. Lacking such evidence, it is equally possible that several reasons, such as overall reduced population in Polluxton, bad weather like heavy snow, or refit of the library for a long time, caused last year's decrease. Unless the author precludes these factors, the author's conclusion remains to be unconvinced.

To sum up, the argument is unpersuasive as it stands. To bolster it, the author must offer clear evidence that merging the two villages' garbage collection departments prove to be successful, and that to combine the two libraries would be equally useful. To better evaluate the argument, I would need to know more information about why the number of users of library in polluxton reduced last year.

Thanks for reading.

没有单词，就不能活！

回应
0

使用道具举报

liangrunpeng
UID: 2426782

寄托新兵

Rank: 2

声望: 0
寄托币: 303
注册时间: 2007-11-15
精华: 0
帖子: 0

沙发

发表于 2008-2-29 17:00:29 |只看该作者

由于第一次改作文所以可能改得不怎么好

In this letter, the author recommends that it is necessary for Polluxton and Castorville to close the library in Polluxton and only use the library in Castorville to serve both villages, just as（what） they did recently with the two villages' garbage collection, in order to save money and improve service. To support this recommendation, the author points out that after the two villages combined their garbage collection departments, few complaints has been reported. In addition, the author cites that during the past year, users of library in Polluxton had reduced by 20 percent. However, the argument suffers from several critical flaws.(感觉第一段太罗嗦了而且模板化严重—至少我是这么觉得的，就像imong特训说的那样你只是在引用ARGUMENT的内容而没有突出你的主旨)First of all, the author unfairly assumes that combination of the two villages' garbage collection departments is proved to be successful. Actually, few complaints reported do not indicate that residents of the two villages are generally satisfied with this change. Perhaps the government do not offer an effective organization for residents' complaint. Moreover, perhaps people have not yet found the inconvenience brought by the combination, which might would reveal in the future（应该是which might be revealed in the future吧）. And the author fails to provide clear information about the new department compared with the departments before. It is entirely possible that the combination do not achieve the goal of saving money by reason of increasing fees of garbage's transportation from Polluxton to Castorville. Without ruling out these possibilities, the author cannot convince me that it is reasonable for the two villages to merge their garbage collection departments, let alone to combine their libraries.Secondly, even if the new department of garbage collection is a success, the author fails to account for certain significant differences between collecting garbage and using library. For example, although the new garbage collection department is located in Castorville, residents of Polluxton rarely feel inconvenient; nevertheless, if the library in Polluxton closed, residents living there have to travel to Castorville for using library, which wastes not only people's time but also their money. Consequently, residents of Polluxton will certainly complain for these trouble（感觉这里的certainly说的有点过头了）, while those who live in Castorville might whine about the library crowd with people.Finally, the author's conclusion depends on the unjustifiable assumption that the number of users of the library in Polluxton will unceasingly decrease. Lacking such evidence, it is equally possible that several reasons, such as overall reduced population in Polluxton, bad weather like heavy snow, or refit of the library for a long time, caused last year's decrease. Unless the author precludes these factors, the author's conclusion remains to be unconvinced.（感觉这段不太主要，其实应该来说ARGUMENT里面还有一个错误的，他们两个VILLAGE合并垃圾回收部门是因为他们都有共同的问题：sharp declines in the numbers of residents who pay property taxes，而对于图书馆只显示了Polluxton有问题，并没有说Castorville有问题，Castorville不一定肯合并呢，毕竟合并之后不一定会对Castorville有利—纯属个人意见）To sum up, the argument is unpersuasive as it stands. To bolster it, the author must offer clear evidence that merging the two villages' garbage collection departments prove to be successful, and that to combine the two libraries would be equally useful. To better evaluate the argument, I would need to know more information about why the number of users of library in polluxton reduced last year.

总体感觉楼主写的文章语言表达不是问题，思路也挺清晰的，但是文章有点模板化了。鉴定完毕。

我也是写这个，希望楼主有空可以去看看，给我点意见，写的也不见得怎么好，毕竟说的容易做就难了，呵呵。
https://bbs.gter.net/viewthread.php?tid=807036&extra=page%3D1

【2025FALL】全站祈福已开放~~来领祈福章，求offer得offer

使用道具举报