1.1号 argue

给力UID: 2984858

字数 544；
In this argument, the editor firstly present a fact that in the Bayhead Public Library,
books that are rarely borrowed continue to take up shelf space yera after year,while people who want to read a rencent novel frequently find that the library's only copy is checked out.
and then he hastly draw an assertion that the library's plan to replace books that are borrowed no more than once a year whith sufficient copies of more recent books will solve this problem.Morever,the editor ignored the protest from a group because he believe it is small and unrespresentive.however,the argument relies on a series of unsubstantiated assumptions,which render it unconvincing as it stands.
   first of all,the arguer can't provide the support that the recent books that would be used to replace the old books will be welcomed by the reader.Moreover,even if we assume that the recent books were welcomed at first,we can't grantee that they will be welcomed for a relativly long time.As we all known, the new books' value is usually less than the classic,which can keep vitality for a long time.So,the recent books will become old books quickly.What can we do to meet this question? To replace these books by more recent books?
   secondly,the argument ignores the fact that library's value is not only providing books for reader ,though that may be its most important function,but also keeping amount of classic which were borrowed seldom. These classic may be unwelcomed by the reader, but they are full of potential use value.For instance,some books concerning depth philosophy must be deserted by most of the people, but,we can't replace all of them by varies jok books which might be welcomed by people.
   thirdly, the arguer unfairly implied that we have only two options but ingnored other possible alternates which can
solve the problem and lighten the protests from people. For example, the library can remove books that have not been borrowed for three years or for five years,rather than for one year.Although this alternate plan would free up less shelf space than the current plan ,it would balance the interests between reader and library.
   at last, the mere fact that only thirdy people protest the plan acomplishes little toward supporting the speaker's argument--for two reasons,first,the statistic is scant evidence that most of the reader would support the plan.Because there may be many people don't voice their oppositions for various reasons.secondly,the thirty people may be important if some of them are expert in this field and can influence other people besides them.the number of the group doesn't necessarily reflected the influence of the group.therefor,we need more detailed  survey of these people.
   in sum,the library's plan seems neither well-reasoned nor well-evidenced.To strengthen his point,he must convince me that the plan is welcomed by a major percentage of reader.he should detailed his plan and publiced it to let more people know about and assess it.Morever, he also need assess the plan's impact on the library's value as a community resource.