argument67大家一起写高频!

flyingwindUID: 189320

24号考, 考完给大家改

Argument67
------题目------
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.'
------正文------
The editor of the newspaper concludes that the libraries in the village of Castorville (VC) and the village of Polluxton (VP) should be merged as the similar way as the garbage collection departments of both villages had done recently. However, the editor rested on serious critical unsubstantiated assumptions, therefore rendered the conclusion questionable.

First of all, the editor's inference is based on the assumption that the mergence of the two garbage collection departments in the two villages had saved money and improved service, as the program intended to. Nevertheless, the editor provides no sufficient evidence to prove it is true. Failing any evidence to inspect the effectiveness of this mergence, it is most possible that the mergence attribute little toward the saving of money and improvement of service as a result.

Second, how does "recent" mean in the cited information of the garbage mergence? It means two month ago, or two days ago? It is well known that the effect of any change might not reflect rapidly. Consider, for instance, it had pasted several days since the garbage collection departments of the two villages are merged, then it is most likely the initiative had ignited great complain and the absence of complain is due to the short-term time span.

Third, even if I concede that the mergence of garbage collection departments is successful, it does not mean that the mergence of the libraries can meet the same effect. Many differences between the garbage collection department and the library can explain it. For example, the shortage of garbage collection departments might not do disservice to the village, considering that the workers for garbage collection may still go to every corner of village to collect garbage. Nevertheless, people must do to library to enjoy the service. Thus, the mergence of library might do more harm to the residents of the two villages than the mergence of garbage collection departments did.

And, the editor also bases his/her recommendation on the assumption that the fewer users of library in VP less used the library in VP is.  I find this assumption specious on two aspects. First, if there are some specious reason limited the use of residents in the VP? Perhaps the library is decorated for several months in that year. Or perhaps that there unexpected harsh whether during several months in the years, or there is secure epidemic during the year?  Second, the shortage of readers does not necessarily mean the shortage of usage of the library. It is very likely that the books read per capita are far more than the previous year. Any of these alternatives, if true, would undermine the reliability of the editor’s conclusion.

Finally, even if the mergence is available and necessary, the editorial should consider which library is more favorable to be merged. There is no information about the readers in VS. Perhaps though the 20 percent decrease in the library of VP, the readers in VP are still far more than those in VS due to greater amount of residents in VP, no to say that the decrease rate to the readers of VS maybe greater than that of VS. Thus, the editor may prefer the merge the library of VS rather than that of VP.

In sum, the argument is dubious as it stands. Unless the editor considers and rules out all the scenarios discussed above, the recommendation of the editor accomplishes nothing toward the program for saving money and improving services.

haze1894UID: 185775

24号考, 考完给大家改

Argument67
------题目------
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.'
------正文------
The editor of the newspaper concludes that the libraries in the village of Castorville (VC) and the village of Polluxton (VP) should be merged as the similar way as the garbage collection departments of both villages had done recently. However, the editor rested on serious critical unsubstantiated assumptions, therefore rendered the conclusion questionable.

First of all, the editor's inference is based on the assumption that the mergence of the two garbage collection departments in the two villages had saved money and improved service, as the program intended to. Nevertheless, the editor provides no(doent provide enough) sufficient evidence to prove it is true. Failing any evidence to inspect the effectiveness of this mergence, it is mosty (entirely) possible that the mergence attribute little toward the saving of money and improvement of service as a result.

Second, how does "recent" mean in the cited information of the garbage mergence? It means two month ago, or two days ago? It is well known that the effect of any change might not reflect rapidly. Consider, for instance, it had pasted several days since the garbage collection departments of the two villages are merged, then it is most likely the initiative had ignited great complain and the absence of complain is due to the short-term time span.

Third, (assuming that)even if I concede that the mergence of garbage collection departments is successful, it does not mean that the mergence of the libraries can meet the same effect. Many differences between the garbage collection department and the library can explain it(differences between them can result in different results). For example, the shortage of garbage collection departments might not do disservice to the village, considering that the workers for garbage collection may still go to every corner of village to collect garbage. Nevertheless, people must do to library to enjoy the service. Thus, the mergence of library might do more harm to the residents of the two villages than the mergence of garbage collection departments did.

And, the editor also bases his/her recommendation on the assumption that the fewer users of library in VP less used the library in VP is. I find this assumption specious on two aspects. First, if there are some specious reasons limited the use of residents in the VP? Perhaps the library is decorated for several months in that year. Or perhaps that there unexpected harsh whether during several months in the years, or there is secure epidemic during the year? Second, the shortage of readers does not necessarily mean the shortage of usage of the library. It is very likely that the books read per capita are far more than the previous year. Any of these alternatives, if true, would undermine the reliability of the editor’s conclusion.

Finally, even if the mergence is available and necessary, the editorial should consider which library is more favorable to be merged. There is no information about the readers in VS. Perhaps though the 20 percent decrease in the library of VP, the readers in VP are still far more than those in VS due to greater amount of residents in VP, no to say that the decrease rate to the readers of VS maybe greater than that of VS. Thus, the editor may prefer the merge the library of VS rather than that of VP.

In sum, the argument is dubious as it stands. Unless the editor considers and rules out all the scenarios discussed above, the recommendation of the editor accomplishes nothing toward the program for saving money and improving services.

haze1894UID: 185775

实在不好意思，我第一次改作文，刚才机子又出了点毛病，不能发中文，所以刚才改的不好，多多原谅

haze1894UID: 185775

24号考, 考完给大家改

Argument67
------题目------
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.'
------正文------
The editor of the newspaper concludes that the libraries in the village of Castorville (VC) and the village of Polluxton (VP) should be merged as the similar way as（我不确定可以这么用吗？as,as中间多用形容词吧？） the garbage collection departments of both villages had done recently. However, the editor rested on serious critical unsubstantiated assumptions, therefore rendered the conclusion questionable.

First of all, the editor's inference is based on the assumption that the mergence of the two garbage collection departments in the two villages had saved money and improved service, as the program intended to. Nevertheless, the editor provides no sufficient evidence to prove it is true. Failing any evidence to inspect the effectiveness of this mergence, it is most possible that the mergence attribute little toward the saving of money and improvement of service as a result.

Second, how does "recent" mean in the cited information of the garbage mergence? It means two month ago, or two days ago? It is well known that the effect of any change might not reflect rapidly.（是不是有点中式英语？it will take a long time to figure out the result of changing,你看这样写好吗？） Consider, for instance, it had pasted several days since the garbage collection departments of the two villages are merged, then it is most likely the initiative had ignited great complain and the absence of complain is due to the short-term time span. （我觉得这个例子再展开一点好，譬如说刚开始时投诉可能不多，但随着时间，人们的情绪可能越发不满）

Third, even if I concede（改成assuming) that the mergence of garbage collection departments is successful, it does not mean that the mergence of the libraries can meet the same effect. Many differences between the garbage collection department and the library can explain it. For example, the shortage of garbage collection departments might not do disservice to the village, considering that the workers for garbage collection may still go to every corner of village to collect garbage. Nevertheless, people must do to library to enjoy the service. Thus, the mergence of library might do more harm to the residents of the two villages than the mergence of garbage collection departments did.(这段要表达的意思和第一段一样吧？都是说不同性质的两件事结果可能截然不同吧？我觉得应该合并。）

And, the editor also bases his/her recommendation on the assumption that the fewer users of library in VP less used the library in VP is. I find this assumption specious on two aspects. First, if there are some specious reason limited the use of residents in the VP? Perhaps the library is decorated for several months in that year. Or perhaps that there unexpected harsh whether during several months in the years, or there is secure epidemic during the year? Second, the shortage of readers does not necessarily mean the shortage of usage of the library. It is very likely that the books read per capita are far more than the previous year. Any of these alternatives, if true, would undermine the reliability of the editor’s conclusion.（我觉得这段说的非常好）

Finally, even if the mergence is available and necessary, the editorial should consider which library is more favorable to be merged. There is no information about the readers in VS. Perhaps though the 20 percent decrease in the library of VP, the readers in VP are still far more than those in VS due to greater amount of residents in VP, no to say that the decrease rate to the readers of VS maybe greater than that of VS. Thus, the editor may prefer the merge the library of VS rather than that of VP.

In sum, the argument is dubious as it stands. Unless the editor considers and rules out all the scenarios discussed above, the recommendation of the editor accomplishes nothing toward the program for saving money and improving services.
总的来说后两段论证的充分，但前面的几段应该再合并修改一下

flyingwindUID: 189320

haze1894
你也加油哈
24号以后pm给我，帮你改文章哈

victoriahui-831UID: 191036

The editor of the newspaper concludes that the libraries in the village of Castorville (VC) and the village of Polluxton (VP) should be merged as the similar way [改成in the similar way as/ as the same as会比较好]as the garbage collection departments of both villages had done recently. However, the editor rested on serious critical unsubstantiated assumptions, therefore rendered the conclusion questionable.

First of all, the editor's inference is based on the assumption that the mergence of the two garbage collection departments in the two villages had saved money and improved service, as the program intended to. Nevertheless, the editor provides no sufficient evidence to prove it is true. Failing any evidence to inspect the effectiveness of this mergence, it is most possible that the mergence attribute little toward the saving of money and improvement of service as a result.[好像没有论述开，如果具体一点就好了]

Second, how does "recent" mean in the cited information of the garbage mergence? It means two month ago, or two days ago? It is well known that the effect of any change might not reflect rapidly. Consider, for instance, it had pasted[has passed] several days since the garbage collection departments of the two villages are[were] merged, then it is most likely the initiative had[时态有待商榷] ignited great complain and the absence of complain is due to the short-term time span.

Third, even if I concede that the mergence of garbage collection departments is successful, it does not mean that the mergence of the libraries can meet the same effect. Many differences between the garbage collection department and the library can explain it. For example, the shortage of garbage collection departments might not do disservice to the village, considering that the workers for garbage collection may still go to every corner of village to collect garbage.[well done! specific example] Nevertheless, people must do[?] to library to enjoy the service. [加一点我个人观点Moreover, the decreased number of readers might due to the library’s lack of attractive and conductive new source of books, not results from what the author assumed—less people are in need of library]Thus, the mergence of library might do more harm to the residents of the two villages than the mergence of garbage collection departments did.[你不是已经承认回收站合并是成功的了吗？怎么又说图书馆合并比回收站合并更有害？]

And,[never initiate a sentence or a paragraph with the word ’and’  in a formal circumstance] the editor also bases his/her recommendation on the assumption that the fewer users of library in VP less used the library in VP is. I find this assumption specious on two aspects. First, if there are some specious reason limited the use of residents in the VP? Perhaps the library is decorated for several months in that year. Or perhaps that there[?] unexpected harsh whether[weather] during several months in the years, or there is secure[?severe?] epidemic during the year? Second, the shortage of readers does not necessarily mean the shortage of usage of the library. It is very likely that the books read per capita are far more than the previous year. Any of these alternatives, if true, would undermine the reliability of the editor’s conclusion.[ I like this paragraph for its specific examples.]

Finally, even if the mergence is available and necessary, the editorial should consider which library is more favorable to be merged. There is no information about the readers in VS. Perhaps though the 20 percent decrease in the library of VP, the readers in VP are still far more than those in VS due to greater amount of residents in VP, no to say[有这种用法吗？] that the decrease[decreased?] rate to the readers of VS maybe greater than that of VS. Thus, the editor may prefer the merge[mergence of] the library of VS rather than that of VP.

In sum, the argument is dubious as it stands. Unless the editor considers and rules out all the scenarios discussed above, the recommendation of the editor accomplishes nothing toward the program for saving money and improving services.

[问一下你打这篇文章用了多长时间？是在三十分钟写完的吗？好厉害!]

flyingwindUID: 189320

超时不多哎~~
24号后回拍哈