Argument 67 欢迎拍砖！！

mariaUID: 197971

------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 argument, the arguer recommends that they should close the library in Polluxtion and use the library in Castorville to serve both villages in order to further economize and improve service. Although this argument presents evidence that seems plausible, after careful examination, we may find several flaws in its reasoning.

To begin with, the arguer's fails to convince us that the mergence of the two garbage collection departments is successful. Since in this letter, the arguer only mentions that after the two villages recently merged their once separate garbage collection departments into a single department located in Castorville and the new departments has reported few complaints about its service, we cannot rule out the possibility that time is not long enough for civilians to find the inconvenience of only one garbage collection department, which justify the phenomenon that few complains have been reported. In addition, the arguer also does not tell us that the cost of collecting garbage has declined, then it is possible that more money will be spent than before considering that departments lies in Castorville when they collect garbage in Polluxton, more fuel may be used. Furthermore, there is no information to indicate that their service has been improved. It is possible that owing to there are so many people available in the department after merging and any one wants others to do more, people's efficiency declined now. Therefore, the fact of cooperation of the two garbage collection departments cannot convince us it is a big model for libraries to learn.

Secondly, granted that the single garbage collection department indeed further economize and improve service, whether this method can be applied to the two libraries is open to doubt, because the two departments are not same enough to justify the analogy. Because garbage collection needs the special people to accomplish, while libraries need reads to come there, after cooperation, out of necessity of job, workers have to go to the two villages to collect garbage whether they are like or not. On the contrary, if library only lies in one place, even if readers in the other village wanting to borrow them choose to buy one form bookstores instead of going further to the very libraries. In this sense, simply imitating other department may be contradictive.

Last but not least, the arguer fails to analyze the true reasons for the declining percent of their users. If in the previous year, people have to work hardly in order to maintain the normal life, they will have less time to read books. Under this circumstance, even if they merge the two libraries, their users will not automatically increase. For another, although 20 percent fewer users borrowed books in that library, whether the amount of books borrowed was also less is uncertain. It is very likely that the overall books borrowed increased rather than declined.

In conclusion, this argument is not convincing enough to vindicate the author’s recommendation. Unless he or she could not provide supplemented information, we cannot accept his or he suggestion.

smlzbbUID: 195191

我来接，^_^
一家之言：
------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 argument, the arguer recommends that they should close the library in Polluxtion and use the library in Castorville to serve both villages in order to further economize and improve service. Although this argument presents evidence that seems plausible（plausible用的不大对）, after careful examination, we may find several flaws in its reasoning.

To begin with, the arguer（没有's） fails to convince us that the mergence of the two garbage collection departments is successful. Since in this letter, the arguer only mentions that after 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, we cannot rule out (用的好)the possibility that time is not long enough for civilians to find the inconvenience of only one garbage collection department, which justify the phenomenon that few complains have been reported（结尾让人不明白在说什么。此外，这句太长了，最好分两句写，中间用转折连词连接）. In addition, the arguer also does not tell us that the cost of collecting garbage has declined.It is possible that more money will be spent than before considering that department(s) lies in Castorville when they collect garbage in Polluxton, more fuel may be used. Furthermore, there is no information to indicate that their service has been improved. It is possible that owing to there are so many people available in the department after merging and any one wants others to do more, people's efficiency declined now. Therefore, the fact of cooperation of the two garbage collection departments cannot convince us it is a big model for libraries to learn.（段首已说明问题，段尾的总结以显得多余）

Secondly, granted that the single garbage collection department indeed further economize and improve service, whether this method can be applied to the two libraries is open to doubt, because the two departments are not same enough to justify the analogy（应是because the two cases are not similar engough to justify the analogical deduction）. Because garbage collection needs the special people to accomplish, while libraries need reads to come there, after cooperation, out of necessity of job, workers have to go to the two villages to collect garbage whether they are like or not. On the contrary, if library only lies in one place, even if readers in the other village wanting to borrow them choose to buy one form bookstores instead of going further to the very libraries. In this sense, simply imitating other department may be contradictive.(后面两句让人不大明白在说什么)

Last but not least, the arguer fails to analyze the true reasons for the declining percent of their users. If in the previous year, people have to work hardly in order to maintain the normal life, they will have less time to read books. Under this circumstance, even if they merge the two libraries, their users will not automatically increase. For another, although 20 percent fewer users borrowed books in that library, whether the amount of books borrowed was also less is uncertain. It is very likely that the overall books borrowed increased rather than declined.(这段时态不对)

In conclusion, this argument is not convincing enough to vindicate the author’s recommendation. Unless he or she could （not） provide supplemented（－》sufficient） information, we cannot accept his or he suggestion.

整文条理很清楚，不过有些句子写的过于冗长，缺少必要的连词。

mariaUID: 197971

谢谢楼上的评价
we cannot rule out (用的好)the possibility that time is not long enough for civilians to find the inconvenience of only one garbage collection department, which justify the phenomenon that few complains have been reported（结尾让人不明白在说什么。此外，这句太长了，最好分两句写，中间用转折连词连接 我这句的意思是说合并成一个垃圾公司的时间太短以致人们无法发现它的不方便指出这点也正好解释了为什么他们受到了很少的抱怨

b2结尾两个词写错了可能阻碍了你的理解：
On the contrary, if library only lies in one place, even if readers in the other village wanting to borrow them choose to buy one from bookstores instead of going further to the very libraries. In this sense, simply imitating other department may be counterproductive
另外真没注意时态问题，谢谢提醒拉