Argument67 严重超时, 大家砸啊

athiferUID: 199136

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------
In this letter, the editor of a newspaper serving the villages of Castorville and Polluxton recommends that they should close the library in Polluxton and use the one in Castorville to serve both villages. To substantiate his/her recommendation, the arguer provides the evidence of the merging of separate garbage collection departments into a single department in Castorville, and assumes that it is a successful combination. This argument is persuasive at first glance, however, a close scrutiny would reveal several logical fallacies which would undermine the line of reasoning.

First of all, the assumption that the merging of garbage collection departments into a single one resulted in saving money and improving service is unreliable and open to doubt. The arguer advocates the dubious assumption on the mere evidence that few complaints reported after the mergence. However, with no exact statistics provided, whether the merger of separate departments would save money still needs to be considered. It is highly possible that the merger brings adequate cost, if not more. Moreover, though few complaints about the new department's service, the assertion that the service is improved needs more reliable study because people who do not satisfy with the service might not do any report, thus for those who has not reported, their opinion might be important to represent the population.

Furthermore, granted that the combination of garbage collection departments do have the effect of saving money and improving service, the arguer commits a false analogy between the merger of garbage collection departments and the combination of libraries. The success of former merger does not necessarily lead to a success of latter combination. When a garbage collection department serves people, people have no need to go to the department to drop their garbage or daily wastes, the department itself would do the collection, and thus people shall hardly do anything different with a single collection department or separate ones. It is not the case when libraries are merged, many people have to go to an unfamiliar library and this might take them a lot of time and energy, thus makes them unsatisfied.

In addition, the arguer got the idea that the library in Castorville alone should serve both villages from the evidence that last year the library in Polluxton had 20 percent fewer users than during the previous year by assuming it is a waste of money to open the library in Polluxton, while it is not necessarily the case. To begin with, the decreasing of users might only happen in the previous year and there is no evidence of trend of user decreasing, thus in this year and the coming year there might be more and more users of libraries in Polluxton, which could prove the close of library in Polluxton is ridiculous; Moreover, with only an average figure provided, we would have no idea how many people in Polluxton no longer go to village library, thus whether there would be still enough users for the library to stay open is in question; Additionally, suppose that there are much more villagers in Polluxton than in Castorville who would like to go to library often, the close of Polluxton library would have an effect poorly in service.

To sum up, the recommendation advocates by the arguer is highly invalid and misleading as well. To strengthen the argument, the arguer should at least have enough credible evidence to support that the library in Polluxton is a waste of money with fewer and fewer users. He/she also has to make sure the combination of libraries would result in saving money together with improving service by providing the exact statistics of total amount saved and the fact that few people would be unsatisfied by the close of Polluxton library.

billkaoUID: 9349

谢谢athifer昨天帮我改argu  //bow
看到大家都写这个67，我也去写一个先，呵呵
今天要是来不及，明天一定帮你改的说
：）

billkaoUID: 9349

No.1 Argument67 严重超时, 大家砸啊
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------
In this letter, the editor编辑是收信人而不是写信的，细节地方要看清 ：） of a newspaper serving the villages of Castorville and Polluxton可以不要 recommends that they should close the library in Polluxton and use the one in Castorville to serve both villages. To substantiate his/her recommendation, the arguer provides the evidence of the merging of separate garbage collection departments into a single department in Castorville, and assumes that it is a successful combination.这个句子不错我觉得 This argument is persuasive at first glance, however, a close scrutiny would reveal several logical fallacies which would undermine the line of reasoning.模版，呵呵
看完你的第一段，感觉你还是有点不入道，整个开头实际上基本就是restate原题+一个针对性不大的general statement. 感觉还有很大的上升空间，具体的可以参考ETS给出5分和6分范文的开头，imong的那个argu的三部曲写的非常好，可以好好学习一下，在精华区argu的那个目录里有
First of all我也爱用这个phrase，xixi, the assumption that the merging of garbage collection departments into a single one resulted in saving money and improving service is unreliable and open to doubt. The arguer advocates the dubious assumption on the mere大家都用这个，咱不妨用个sole evidence that few complaints reported after the mergence. However, with no=without any exact statistics provided, whether the merger of separate departments would save money still needs to be considered. It is highly possible that the merger brings adequate cost, if not more.或者这一句可以改成extra cast might come along with the merger Moreover, though few complaints about the new department's service, the assertion that the service is improved needs more reliable study because people who do not satisfy with the service might not do any report, thus for those who has not reported, their opinion might be important to represent the population=what we just don't know.

Furthermore, granted that the combination of garbage collection departments do have the effect of saving money and improving service=be successful就成, the arguer commits a false analogy between the merger of garbage collection departments and the combination of libraries. The success of former merger does not necessarily lead to=ensurea success of latter combination. When a garbage collection department serves people=works, people have no need to go to the department=there to drop their garbage or daily wastes, the department itself would do the collection, and thus peoplethus等逻辑连词可以放在主语和助动词之间 shall hardly do anything different with a single collection department or separate ones. It is not the case when libraries are merged, many people说明是P处的更好 have to go=move to an unfamiliar library and this might take them a lot of time and energy, thus makes them=peopleunsatisfied.

In addition, the arguer got the idea that the library in Castorville alone should serve both villages from the evidence that last year the library in Polluxton had 20 percent fewer users than during the previous year by assuming it is a waste of money to open=keep the library in Polluxton, while it is not necessarily the case. To begin with,有点多余 the decreasing of users might only happen in the previous year and there is no evidence of trend of user=further decreasing, thus用了那么多thus，也可以缓口气用so了，呵呵 in this year and the coming year there might be more and more users of libraries in Polluxton, which could prove the close of library in Polluxton is ridiculous;awkard semicolon Moreover, with only an average figure=percentage provided, we would多余 have no idea how many people in Polluxton no longer go to village library, thus whether there would be still enough users for the library to stay open is in question; 分号爱好者哈 xixiAdditionally, suppose that there are much more villagers in Polluxton than in Castorville who would like to go to library often, the close of Polluxton library would have an effect poorly in service.
几个点找的都不错，但是没有组织好攻击的顺序，段落内部的逻辑性不足，显得有些东一榔头西一棒子，其实只要调整一下顺序就会有很大的改观 ：）

To sum up, the recommendation advocates by the arguer is highly invalid and misleading as well. To strengthen the argument, the arguer should at least have enough credible evidence to support that the library in Polluxton is a waste of money with fewer and fewer users. He/she also has to make sure the combination of libraries would result in saving money together with improving service by providing the exact statistics of total amount saved and the fact that few people would be unsatisfied by the close of Polluxton library.
对于argu结尾是否要替修改意见，一直以来有很多说法，我的观点是可以说，但是没必要多说，毕竟我们的主要任务是攻击是批驳。与其提出修改意见，不如直接总结一下原文的错误，可能效果会更好些吧

看了你的文章，感觉挺好，有不少地方的思路和语言值得我借鉴的。但是也有些问题，试着列举如下：
1 模版味不算浓，但是还是显得有些不够融通，让人感觉那些模版没有能够完全融入到你的文章整体中。可能还是用的不够灵活吧，其实你自己写的不少句子都挺不错的
2 你爱用长句，但是不少是超长句。句子一长就难，一难就容易出错。尤其是各段的主题句，最好还是用简洁明了的短句直入主题，一针见血好些
其实我的水平也不怎么样了，上面说的这两点我也经常犯，权当是我提出来大家共勉吧
再次感谢你改我的作文  //bow  ：）

athiferUID: 199136

十分感谢billkao同学的修改和建议，觉得受益非浅
自己还在入门阶段，以后也请多多指教