sticking on 小组作业_Argument 184

thu_goabroadUID: 2979797

Argument 184
In the Bayhead Public Library, books that are rarely borrowed continue to take up shelf space year after year, while people who want to read a recent novel frequently find that the library's only copy is checked out. Clearly, the library's plan to replace books that are borrowed no more than once a year with sufficient copies of more recent books will solve this problem. The protest we have heard since this plan was made public has come from a small, and thus unrepresentative, group of some thirty people and so should therefore be ignored.
字数统计：424

    In the argument above, the arguer concludes that the plan of the Bayhead Public Library to replace the rarely-borrowed books with sufficient copies of more recent books should be implemented, regardless of the rejection from the opponents. Sound as it may seem at first thought, the argument suffers from several fallacies and unsubstantiated assumptions the arguer has neglected or chosen to ignore, which are indispensable for reaching his or her conclusion at the same time.
    In the first place, the arguer bolster his or her conclusion on the assumption that there will be only many benefits brought by the implement of the plan of the library, without any disadvantages or the disadvantages are too minor to be taken into account. However, as the replacement of the rarely-borrowed books, there may well be too many recent books, which are very popular only for a short time. Not only are the interests of the original borrower of the books replaced damaged, but also there will be an additional expense on the extra recent books which will be of no use shortly after they appeared on the shelves.
    In the second place, when it comes to the question that whether we should take the protest from the just some thirty people into consideration, the arguer rashly takes for granted that the protest should be ignored for its none-representativeness due to the scale is too small. Whereas there are several aspects the author failed to notice. Do the some thirty people really constitute the majority of the people whose interests will be damaged? What's more, what if the opponents are of high status, having great influence on the whole community? Shouldn't we consider these important factors before we make the final decision?
    The last but not the least important, the arguer simply implies that there are only two choices we can choose from: to maintain the current status or to follow the proposed plan, while ignores other possible solutions to solve the problem. An apparent approach is applying for fund from local government to enlarge the scale of the library, which will bring benefits to future generations. Without accounting for and ruling out the possible alternatives to solve the current problem, the argument is weak and unpersuasive.
    To sum up, to make the argument cogent and persuasive, the arguer must take the shortcomings of the plan into consideration, supply more data about the opponents, make sure if there are better choices, and then compare and evaluate the advantages and the disadvantages of the possible plans thoroughly and scrutinizingly.

给力UID: 2984858

In the argument above, the arguer concludes that the plan of the Bayhead Public Library to replace the rarely-borrowed books with sufficient copies of more recent books should be implemented, regardless of the rejection from the opponents. Sound as it may seem at first thought, the argument suffers from several fallacies and unsubstantiated assumptions the arguer has neglected or chosen to ignore, which are indispensable for reaching his or her conclusion at the same time.
    In the first place, the arguer bolster his or her conclusion on the assumption that there will be only many benefits brought by the implementation of the plan of the library, without any disadvantages or the disadvantages are too minor to be taken into account. However, as the replacement of the rarely-borrowed books, there may well be too many recent books, which are very popular only for a short time. Not only are the interests of the original borrower of the books replaced damaged, but also there will be an additional expense on the extra recent books which will be of no use shortly after they appeared on the shelves(太注重语言，使得论述有点乏力，可以对潜在的坏处进行更深入的剖析)。.
    In the second place, when it comes to the question that whether we should take the protests from the just some thirty people into consideration, the arguer rashly takes for granted that the protest should be ignored for its none-representativeness due to the scale is too small. Whereas there are several aspects the author failed to notice. Do the some thirty people really constitute the majority of the people whose interests will be damaged? What's more, what if the opponents are of high status, having great influence on the whole community? Shouldn't we consider these important factors before we make the final decision?(分析的有道理)
    The last but not the least important, the arguer simply implies that there are only two choices we can choose from: to maintain the current status or to follow the proposed plan, while ignores other possible solutions to solve the problem. An apparent approach is applying for fund from local government to enlarge the scale of the library, which will bring benefits to future generations. Without accounting for and ruling out the possible alternatives to solve the current problem, the argument is weak and unpersuasive.（不错的alternative examples）
    To sum up, to make the argument cogent and persuasive, the arguer must take the shortcomings of the plan into consideration, supply more data about the opponents, make sure if there are other better choices, and then compare and evaluate the advantages and the disadvantages of the possible plans thoroughly and scrutinizing.

这篇文章在对argument的分析上应该是很到位的，对存在的主要逻辑问题处理的也很到位，对文章的结构安排也很合理，结尾段的建议也很前后呼应。
问题在于：1.语言稍显贫乏，不够流畅，中国式英语痕迹太重（这也是我的问题）。
2.每一段的论述展开都显乏力，估计也是因为表达能力的原因，解决好了会有质的提升。
文中语法错误，我找不出多少来，感觉就是有点不流畅，语言的感觉要加强，我的毛病也是这啊。