argu67, 好多模板不知这样行不行

zhengandhong135UID：164542

The argument is well presented, but not thoroughly well reasoned. In this argument, the arguer concludes that in order to further economize and improve service, we should close the library in Polluxton and use the library in Castorville to serve both villages. The conclusion seems valid, however, a further investigation will find how it is groundless.

Firstly, the arguer commits a fallacy of hasty generalization. Given that the new department has reported few complaints about its service, it does not follow that there is no problem with the new department, because the arguer does not provide enough solid information about the conclusion. Unless such information as the traffic condition of the two villages is well concerned, there is no guarantee that what the author suggested is totally reliable. It is possible that after the connection of the two departments, because of the poor traffic less convenience has been left. Moreover, the cost of the transport is actually increasing.

Secondly, the arguer claims that last year the library in Polluxton had 20 percent fewer users than during the previous year. He analyzes the data in a relative way rather than an absolute way. Though the figure keeps falling, it is possible that its pace has decelerated significantly. Under such circumstances, the situation of using library in Polluxton is becoming better. In addition, comparing with Polluxton, it is likely that much less people come to the library in Castorville for a great deal of reasons. For example, villagers in Castorville would like to watch TV rather than reading books. Changing to read electronic books as most of the villages is likely to occur.  Then, it is not so convenient to collect readers in Castorville.

Finally, the problem is that the two situations between garbage collection departments and the libraries are not similar enough to justify the analogical deduction. It fails to consider the possible difference between the two, such as the original size, which might help to bring about a completely different result. Perhaps, with regard to garbage collection departments, which at first the sizes of the two villages are both so large to waste too many manual and financial resources. The diffusion of management is also likely to occur. Therefore, after the combination these problems certainly may be resolved. However, it is probable that the libraries may not so lucky because of their small sizes. If only one is opened in Castorville, plenty of complaints will occur.

Overall, the reasoning behind stopping the connection of the two libraries seems logical as presented above since the probable small sizes. However, before any final decisions are made about whether they ought to be combined, the governments of the two villages should evaluate all possible alternatives and causes for a deeper thought.

zhoulin00001UID：189304

帮你顶一下
一会贴上来

zhoulin00001UID：189304

The argument is well presented, but not thoroughly well reasoned. In this argument, the arguer concludes that in order to further economize and improve service, we should close the library in Polluxton and use the library in Castorville to serve both villages. The conclusion seems valid, however, a further investigation will find how it is groundless.第一句好象没用

Firstly, the arguer commits a fallacy of hasty generalization. Given that the new department has reported few complaints about its service, it does not follow that there is no problem with the new department, because the arguer does not provide enough solid information about the conclusion. Unless such information as the traffic condition of the two villages is well concerned, there is no guarantee that what the author suggested is totally reliable. It is possible that after the connection of the two departments, because of the poor traffic less convenience has been left. Moreover, the cost of the transport is actually increasing.

Secondly, the arguer claims that last year the library in Polluxton had 20 percent fewer users than during the previous year. He analyzes the data in a relative way rather than an absolute way. Though the figure keeps falling, it is possible that its pace has decelerated significantly. Under such circumstances, the situation of using library in Polluxton is becoming better. In addition, comparing with Polluxton, it is likely that much less people come to the library in Castorville for a great deal of reasons. For example, villagers in Castorville would like to watch TV rather than reading books. Changing to read electronic books as most of the villages is likely to occur. Then, it is not so convenient to collect readers in Castorville.

Finally, the problem is that the two situations between garbage collection departments and the libraries are not similar enough to justify the analogical deduction. It fails to consider the possible difference between the two, such as the original size, which might help to bring about a completely different result. Perhaps, with regard to garbage collection departments, which at first the sizes of the two villages are both so large to waste too many manual and financial resources. The diffusion of management is also likely to occur. Therefore, after the combination these problems certainly may be resolved. However, it is probable that the libraries may not so lucky because of their small sizes. If only one is opened in Castorville, plenty of complaints will occur.关键是两者性质不同，前者是上门服务，后者需要读者自己去

Overall, the reasoning behind stopping the connection of the two libraries seems logical as presented above since the probable small sizes. However, before any final decisions are made about whether they ought to be combined, the governments of the two villages should evaluate all possible alternatives and causes for a deeper thought.
你的模版痕迹太重了，感觉是往模版里凑错误，而不是根据错误用不同的模版，还有逻辑组织上最好按递进关系，也可按作者的论据顺序进行，加油！

ponponUID：181304

第一句话应该作为结尾段的，老周说的很对啊，模板啊，最好不要这样啊

flyingwindUID：189320

你的摸班太厉害了
The argument is well presented, but not thoroughly well reasoned
！！！
连ETS的你都感抄袭哦！

zhengandhong135UID：164542

好的,模板痕迹慢慢抹去
ETS也不抄了
换个开头感觉应该好些,我是按论据顺序写的啊