- 最后登录
- 2014-8-19
- 在线时间
- 2 小时
- 寄托币
- 2409
- 声望
- 0
- 注册时间
- 2005-11-10
- 阅读权限
- 35
- 帖子
- 5
- 精华
- 0
- 积分
- 2241
- UID
- 2156480
![Rank: 6](template/archy_plt8/image/star_level3.gif) ![Rank: 6](template/archy_plt8/image/star_level2.gif)
- 声望
- 0
- 寄托币
- 2409
- 注册时间
- 2005-11-10
- 精华
- 0
- 帖子
- 5
|
Argument67 (630)
The following appeared in a letter to the editor of a mewspaper serving the villages of Castorville and Polluxton.
“Both the villages of castorville and Polluxtom 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 Pollluxton had 20percent 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 Casrorcille to serve both villages.”
提纲:
1、 投诉少!=质量好
2、 错误类比。垃圾收集部门合并成功!=图书馆合并成功
3、 合并不一定会节省开支。
The arguer advises to close the library in polluxtox (P) and use the library in Castorville (C) to serve both villages in order to further economize and improve service, because the incorporation of the garbage collection departments of P and C is successful. But, the evident the arguer shows us cannot support his or her point.
First, the arguer considers that the incorporation is successful because the new department has reported few complaints about its service. However the data is not believable, because it is offered by the new garbage collection department itself. A new department needs a good reputation, so it could report fewer data of the complaints about the garbage collection department, in order to leave a wonderful impression to its customers. Even if the data which is reported by the department is true, the few complaints about the service do not mean the service offered by new department is satisfactory. Perhaps the number of complaints about its service is large per day, but the total of them is small, because the department has not been open for a long time and the residents there do not know well about it. Moreover, even if the number of complaints is fewer now, we could not imply the number of the future is fewer too. When something is new, the manager will show the most perfect part to the mass, yet with the time passes, the service of the new department would return other side possibly. Hence, the arguer cannot make me believe the incorporation of the garbage department is successful through the evident in the letter.
Second, the arguer attempt to make us believe that the incorporation of the libraries of P and C will be successful, because of the success of the incorporation of the garbage collection departments of those two villages. But, the service ways of the garbage collection department and the library are so different. The garbage collection department goes to each community to collect garbage, so it does not make a large affect to the convenience of the customers, while the incorporate library would leave some trouble to its customers, because they must go to the library themselves to gain the service, unless the library offer the sending book service. If the library in P is closed, not the whole P’s customers must go to the new library in C considering the distance between the two villages. Maybe, some people are lazy to go so far to read books, some people think the traffic between his or her home and the library is inconvenient, or the kids and olds cannot travel(用travel行吗?) so long distance alone. Thereby, I do not consider the incorporation of the library is feasible.
Finally, the goal the arguer wants to close the library in P is to save money, but in my opinion, the incorporation cannot save money at all. On the one hand, if the library in C proffers service to the customers from two villages, the library will be redecorated to contain more readers even build a new building. It would spend the government too much money. On the other hand, the close of the library in P would lead many people lose their work, who used work in the library of P. Then, the government would spend the welfare for them. So I need more information to believe that the incorporation could save money for the government really.
I cannot agree with the arguer to close the library in P to save money. The arguer needs to show us more necessary information to cite his or her point, such as the number of the complaints per day, whether the reader used in P go to the library in C, and expenditure budget after incorporation. |
|