argument67 火箭上升的高频

ayrieUID: 128476

67The 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."

The argument is well-presented, but not systematically well-reasoned. The arguer asserts that the library of Polluxton (P) should be closed and used the library in Castorville(C) instead to serve both villages. As it stands, I find this argument suffers from several critical flaws.

Most obviously, the mere evidence that the numbers of residents who pay property taxes decreased sharply is not sufficed to support the arguer's assumption the financial condition in both T and C also decreased. It is quite possible that some other taxes increased sharply too, and these taxes overweight the decreased property taxes. Therefore, his recommendation to close T's library is unnecessary.

In addition, even assume that the financial condition of T and C do decreased, the arguer's further recommendation based on unconvincing evidence that the merged garbage collection departments saved the funds and it was more efficient than the separated ones does. Perhaps just because the merged one located in C, so the traffic fees of the garbage from T is increased intensely, therefore total funds of garbage collection does not reduce. Also, just by the fact that the new merged one has reported few complaints about its service, I cannot believe that the service is improved. Perhaps the service in T is even worse, but because the one located in C, so that it is hard for the citizens of T to report these complains. In short, without creditable evidence to prove these doubts,  I don't believe that the merged one can save more the funds and more efficient than the separated ones does.

Finally, even assume that the mergence of R.C is beneficial; the arguer's recommendation that merged the two libraries is still open to doubt. The arguer suffers from false analogy of two totally different subjects. Firstly, also last year the library in Polluxton had 20 percent fewer users than during the previous year, it does not mean that the remained readers of the library are fewer enough that the library can be closed and merged to C’s. Secondly, no evidence supported the arguer’s assumption that the merged one will further economize and improve service as R.C did.
Perhaps the mergence will cost more money and caused more problems than it served. People in T may be distressed when they want to read, also the library in C may be more crowd than ever before. In conclusion, this recommendation is unrealistic as the information gave by the arguer.

In sum, the arguer must provide more convincing information and reasonable evidence to support his recommendation, but he fails to do so.

AutoseaUID: 192045

总体不错！
说下不足：
第三段中对合并garbage collection能节约钱的攻击不太具体。最好能明确说明交通成本抵消了合并所减少的成本。还有说因为garbage collection不在P而导致P居民无法反映抱怨，这看起来不是太符合常识。
第四段同样感觉不是很具体。比如说P的图书馆人还没有少到要关门的程度，你最好这样说：P的图书馆尽管人少了可还是人满为患。另外，对图书馆合并节省成本的攻击也应该提出些实在的例子。

ayrieUID: 128476

的确，拍的很好，因为限制时间，所以有点紧张