[a习作temp] argument67 [Jet]小组第八次作业 [复制链接]

benjamin07
UID: 2310909

初级会员

Rank: 3 Rank: 3

声望: 0
寄托币: 862
注册时间: 2007-3-9
精华: 0
帖子: 2

电梯直达

楼主

发表于 2008-2-19 13:43:10 |只看该作者 |倒序浏览

TOPIC: 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."
WORDS: 438       TIME: 上午 30:00       DATE: 2008-1-2

According to this argument, the arguer recommends that villages of Castorville and Pulluxton should shut down one library in Pulluxton in order to save money and improve service. To support this claim, the arguer quotes the fact that these two villages have been incorporated the two garbage in these two villages into one and asserted that it had obtained great success in saving money and improving service. However, this argument suffers from several critical flaws.

In the first place, the arguer fails to provide the evidence that merging  their once separate garbage collection departments into one department has saved money and improved service. To support this claim, the arguer points out that few people complained about the garbage collection's service. However, it is not equal to say that people are satisfied with the service they provide. It is entirely possible that people are too busy to complain the results to the department. Moreover, arguer fails to provide the information about  the operation fees used to collect the garbage, including before and after the emerge, thus making us unable to understand which is more efficient. Therefore, without ruling out the possibilities mentioned above, it is unfairly for the arguer to conclude that a single department can save money and improve service.

In the second place, it is likely that the arguer commits a fallacy of false analogy since incorporating two libraries into one is different from the merged garbage collection. The arguer fails to take into account several relative factors that may affect the similarities of the analogy. For instance, the service of the library is different from that in garbage collection. It is very likely that this course of action would cause great objection by the residents of the Polluxton, because they will find it very unconvenient for them to borrow books from the library if local library is shut down. However, local garbage can be collected by the truck and taken away at any time. In addition, the arguer must provide the fees which are used to operate the library can obviously  decrease.  Therefore, the above mention possibilities make the analogy highly suspect.

In sum, the arguer fails to make a reasonable analysis of this argument. To make it logically acceptable, the arguer must provide more detailed information concerning that the service in garbage collection actually improved and the money saved.  Moreover, the most important part is that the arguer must do some detailed analysis before making the conclusion that the two villages could share one library by shutting down one.  I would suspend my suspicion of the argument until the arguer provides the evidence mentioned above.

回应
0

使用道具举报

hds123523000
UID: 2454889

寄托新兵

Rank: 2

声望: 0
寄托币: 212
注册时间: 2008-2-3
精华: 0
帖子: 0

沙发

发表于 2008-2-20 15:16:23 |只看该作者

回复 #1 benjamin07 的帖子

According to this argument, the arguer recommends that villages of Castorville and Pulluxton should shut down one library in Pulluxton in order to save money and improve service. To support this claim, the arguer quotes the fact that these two villages have been incorporated the two garbage in these two villages into one and asserted that it had obtained great success in saving money and improving service. However, this argument suffers from several critical flaws.

In the first place, the arguer fails to provide the evidence that merging  their once separate【d】 garbage collection departments into one department has saved money and improved service. 【你前面说缺乏证据，后面怎么一下就有证据拉？】To support this claim, the arguer points out that few people complained about the garbage collection's service. However, it is not equal to say that people are satisfied with the service they provide. It is entirely possible that people are too busy to complain the results to the department. Moreover, arguer fails to provide the information about  the operation fees used to collect the garbage, including before and after the emerge【emerging吧】, thus making us unable to understand which is more efficient. Therefore, without ruling out the possibilities mentioned above, it is unfairly for the arguer to conclude that a single department can save money and improve service.

In the second place, it is likely that the arguer commits a fallacy of false analogy since incorporating two libraries into one is different from the merged garbage collection. The arguer fails to take into account【应该是take account into吧】 several relative factors that may affect the similarities of the analogy. For instance, the service of the library is different from that in garbage collection. It is very likely that this course of action would cause great objection by the residents of the Polluxton, because they will find it very unconvenient【inconvenient】 for them to borrow books from the library if local library is shut down. However, local garbage can be collected by the truck and taken away at any time. In addition, the arguer must【should好一点，语气缓和一点啊】provide the fees which are used to operate the library can obviously  decrease.  Therefore, the above mention【ed】 possibilities make the analogy highly suspect.

In sum, the arguer fails to make a reasonable analysis of this argument. To make it logically acceptable, the arguer must provide more detailed information concerning that the service in garbage collection actually improved and the money【was】saved.  Moreover, the most important part is that the arguer must do some detailed analysis before making the conclusion that the two villages could share one library by shutting down one.  I would suspend my suspicion of the argument until the arguer 【does not】provides the evidence mentioned above.

【2025FALL】全站祈福已开放~~来领祈福章，求offer得offer

使用道具举报