【sticking on作文小组】Argue184 By7号

SpriteTCUID: 2765113

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.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
405words



The arguer advocates that replace seldom borrowed books with sufficient copies of more recent books will meet the need of reading a recent novel. Although this argument might be seemingly well presented, it actually suffers from a series of critical defects, weakening its validity to a large extent. The reasons are stated as follows.



In the first place, The author ignores the negative effects of replacing books that are seldom borrowed with more recent books. Less borrowed books does not equal insignificant books. For instance, the academic books and classical literature may be obscure but virtually fundamental for a library to attract readers and such readers will be frustrated when they can not find what they are interested in. Ignoring the needs of these people will result in the lack of diversity as a library. The arguer's reasoning is definitely flawed unless the arguer can convince me that these seldom borrowed books are out of value.



In the second place, The memo contains no evidence to support the assumption that the recent books will never be out of date. To illustrate this point clearly, let us take a look at the following representative example. It is quite possible that these books will lose their popularity after a period of time and cause many problems. Stocking large amount of recent book and replacing them might press enormous financial burden on library. Without accounting for and ruling out these and other alternative explanations, the arguer cannot bolster the recommendation.



The last but not least, even if the evidence turns out to support the foregoing assumptions, the arguer just simply assumes that the library has only two options: to maintain the status quo or to follow the proposed plan, while ignores other possible solutions to solve the problem and no anecdotal evidence is provided to affirm this assumption. It is just as possible that library has the third or fourth option,such as increasing the number of shelves and providing online book reading service. To reach the cited conclusion, the arguer must explain either why none of other options is available or why none of them is able to sustain.



To sum up, the arguer's argument is not based on valid evidence and sound reasoning, neither of which is dispensable for a conclusive argument. To better evaluate the argument, I would advice the author to improve in the aspect that seldom borrowed books are worthless and out of date.

lwcnUID: 2644953

The arguer advocates that replace(replacing) seldom borrowed books with sufficient copies of more recent books will meet the need of reading a recent novel(这句话不通顺? will meet the need for sufficient recent novels). Although this argument might be seemingly well presented(Argue还是力求简洁~ seem well presented), it actually suffers from a series of critical defects, weakening its validity to a large extent. The reasons(Reasons, 之前没有提过resons，不需要定冠词) are stated as follows.



In the first place, The author ignores the negative effects of replacing books that are seldom borrowed with more recent books. Less borrowed books does not equal insignificant books. For instance, the academic books and classical literature may be obscure but virtually fundamental for a library to attract readers and such readers will be frustrated when they can not find what they are interested in. Ignoring the needs of these people will result in the lack of diversity as a library. The arguer's reasoning is definitely flawed unless the arguer can convince me that these seldom borrowed books are out of value.(invaluable)



In the second place, The memo contains no evidence to support the assumption that the recent books will never be out of date. To illustrate this point clearly, let us take a look at the following representative example. It is quite possible that these books will lose their popularity after a period of time and cause many problems. Stocking large amount of recent book and replacing them might press enormous financial burden on library. Without accounting for and ruling out(留一个就行了 ruling out) these and other alternative explanations, the arguer cannot bolster the recommendation.



The last but not least, even if the evidence turns out to support the foregoing assumptions, the arguer just simply assumes that the library has only two options: to maintain the status quo or to follow the proposed plan, while ignores other possible solutions to solve the problem and no anecdotal evidence is provided to affirm this assumption. It is just as possible that library has the third or fourth option,such as increasing the number of shelves and providing online book reading service. To reach the cited conclusion, the arguer must explain either why none of other options is available or why none of them is able to sustain. (写的非常好哈)



To sum up, the arguer's argument is not based on valid evidence and sound reasoning, neither of which is dispensable for a conclusive argument. To better evaluate the argument, I would advice the author to improve in the aspect that seldom borrowed books are worthless and out of date.