agument67，超级高频题，我看见砖头飞来

dcmlfrogUID: 200892

Agument67:
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 the above argument, the author recommends that we should close the library in Polluxton and use the one in Castorville to serve both villages. The arguer arrives at this conclusion by providing the result of change in Castorville’s garbage service as evident. To further justify the prediction, he or she cites the change in the percentage of library users in Polluxton. Nevertheless, this argument is based on some questionable assumptions so that it might not be so convincing as it appears.

The author’s assertion depends on the gratuitous assumption that the change in the garbage collection service turn out to be a successful one. To bolster this viewpoint, the arguer offers the evidence that the new department has reported few complaints about the service. However, it is arbitrary to consider few complaints as satisfaction. It is entirely possible that the residents only do not willing to bother to report complaints, or the manager in that region kept back the dissatisfaction of the people. There is also possibility that the residents have moved to other cities due to this policy so that there are only a few people live in these two regions. Then even if all of them complain about the change the number is still small.

Given that the new policy in garbage service has indeed improved the service in that region, it is groundless to assert that the same situation would take place in library service. First, these two departments are distinctive ones, they may face different problems. For garbage collection, it may be more convenient to manage and provide better service if there is a big collection center. While for library, centralization might lead to inconvenience because some residents may have to take a long journey from on village to the other to borrow books after mergence. If it is really like this, it is not a wise choice to merge the two libraries.

Further more, the author fails to demonstrate the casual relationship between the mergence and the economizing. There is no information about the cost of the mergence. It is possible that we have to enlarge the room of the library in order to meet more villagers from the closed library, which may need a big investment. It is also imaginable that it maybe more difficult to manage after mergence, which may bring about some problems and loss in profit. Before we make a well designed budget, it is reasonable to suspicious whether it will save money.

Provided that we need to close one of the libraries, there is no reason to close the one in Polluxton.
The decrease in the percentage of library users doesn’t mean it has a worse situation. Since we don’t know the exact number of the users of these two libraries, it is reasonable to believe that though the quantity of users has decreased 20 percent in Polluxton there is still more readers there. Before we make a more detailed survey, we should not decide which one to be closed curtly.

To sum up, this weak argument lacks credibility. To substantiate the conclusion, the arguer needs to make further survey provide more persuasive evidence, otherwise we should not adopt the suggestion.

neuzergUID: 156156

In the above argument, the author recommends that we should close the library in Polluxton and use the one in Castorville to serve both villages. The arguer arrives at this conclusion by providing the result of change in Castorville’s garbage service as evident是不是该用proof？. To further justify the prediction, he or she cites the change changement in the percentage of library users in Polluxton. Nevertheless, this argument is based on some questionable assumptions so that it might not be so convincing as it appears.

The author’s assertion depends on the gratuitous assumption that the change in the garbage collection service turn out to be a successful one. To bolster this viewpoint, the arguer offers the evidence that the new department has reported few complaints about the service. However, it is arbitrary to consider few complaints as satisfaction. It is entirely possible that the residents only do not willing to bother to report complaints,这句话的意思是不是说人们不想惹麻烦？你看这样说会不会更好一点：It is possible that the residents are afraid of the trouble coming after they report complaint, after all at present there is only one place that they can get this service. or the manager in that region kept back the dissatisfaction of the people. There is also possibility that the residents have moved to other cities due to this policy so that there are only a few people live in these two regions. Then even if all of them complain about the change the number is still small.

Given that the new policy in garbage service has indeed improved the service in that region, it is groundless to assert that the same situation would take place in library service. First, these two departments are distinctive ones, they may face different problems. For garbage collection, it may be more convenient to manage and provide better service if there is a big collection center. While for library, centralization might lead to inconvenience because some residents may have to take a long journey from on village to the other to borrow books after mergence. If it is really like this, it is not a wise choice to merge the two libraries.

Further more, the author fails to demonstrate the casual relationship between the mergence and the economizing. There is no information about the cost of the mergence. It is possible that we have to enlarge the room of the library in order to meet more villagers from the closed library, which may need a big investment. It is also imaginable that it maybe more difficult to manage after mergence, which may bring about some problems and lossdecrease in profit. Before we make a well designed budget, it is reasonable to besuspicious whether it will save money.

Provided that we need to close one of the libraries, there is no reason to close the one in Polluxton.
The decrease in the percentage of library users doesn’t mean it has a worse situation. Since we don’t know the exact number of the users of these two libraries, it is reasonable to believe that though the quantity of users has decreased 20 percent in Polluxton there is still more readers there. 这里有点看不懂？能解释一下吗Before we make a more detailed survey, we should not decide which one to be closed curtly.

To sum up, this weak argument lacks credibility. To substantiate the conclusion, the arguer needs to make further survey  and provide more persuasive evidence, otherwise we should not adopt the suggestion
楼主说理还是很充分的，但最后一个逻辑错误的解释好像有点不太清楚。三，四两段其实是说同一个逻辑错误，能和在一段里的，分开在逻辑上反而有一点别扭了。还有就是语法错误了，继续努力！

skyisblueUID: 196596

感觉第三四段的论证比较牵强，没有说道正点，前面两段较好，论证有一定的逻辑性

dcmlfrogUID: 200892

谢谢大家的建议，感激不尽

haze1894UID: 185775

Agument67:
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 the above argument, the author recommends that we should close the library in Polluxton and use the one in Castorville to serve both villages. The arguer arrives at this conclusion by providing the result of change in Castorville’s garbage service as（an) evident. To further justify the prediction, he or she cites the change in the percentage of library users in Polluxton. Nevertheless, this argument is based on some questionable assumptions so that it might not be so convincing as it appears.

The author’s assertion depends on the gratuitous assumption that the change in the garbage collection service turn out to be a successful one. To bolster this viewpoint, the arguer offers the evidence that the new department has reported few complaints about the service. However, it is arbitrary to consider few complaints as satisfaction. It is entirely possible that the residents only do not willing to bother to report complaints, or the manager in that region kept back the dissatisfaction of the people. There is also possibility that the residents have moved to other cities due to this policy so that there are only a few people live in these two regions. Then even if all of them complain about the change the number is still small.(这个例子是不是可能性太小呀？）

Given that the new policy in garbage service has indeed improved the service in that region, it is groundless to assert that the same situation would take place（这个词放在这不准） in library service. First, these two departments are distinctive ones, they may face different problems. For garbage collection, it may be more convenient to manage and provide better service if there is a big collection center. While for library, centralization might lead to inconvenience because some residents may have to take a long journey from on village to the other to borrow books after mergence. If it is really like this, it is （might be) not a wise choice to merge the two libraries.这个例子就好很多，既实际有自然

Further more, the author fails to demonstrate the casual relationship between the mergence and the economizing. There is no information about the cost of the mergence. It is possible that we have to enlarge the room of the library in order to meet more villagers from the closed library, which may need a big investment. It is also imaginable that it maybe more difficult to manage after mergence, which may bring about some problems and loss in profit. Before we make a well designed budget, it is reasonable to suspicious whether it will save money.

Provided that we need to close one of the libraries, there is no reason to close the one in Polluxton.
The decrease in the percentage of library users doesn’t mean it has a worse situation. Since we don’t know the exact number of the users of these two libraries, it is reasonable to believe that though the quantity of users has decreased 20 percent in Polluxton there is still more readers there. Before we make a more detailed survey, we should not decide which one to be closed curtly.

To sum up, this weak argument lacks credibility. To substantiate the conclusion, the arguer needs to make further survey provide more persuasive evidence, otherwise we should not adopt the suggestion.

我觉得问题主要在第一段的论证上，其他几段都不错