Argument67 （no pain no gain互改队— archy）

archyUID: 2147748

Argument67
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."

------------------------------
1. new department抱怨减少的报道不可靠；
2．P城图书馆人少，不是关闭的理由；
3．假设真关闭了，也不可能省钱，更不用说提供服务。因此，关闭并不能解决问题；
4．错误类推：图书馆和垃圾站不能相提并论；

This letter’s author recommends closing the library in Polluxton and using the library in Castorville as a good way for both villages. The author reasons that new garbage collection departments relocated in Castorville was reported fewer complaints than before amalgamating garbage collection departments of Pulluxton and Castorville, so does the library. I find the argument logically unconvincing in three respects.

First of all, the author cited the report that complaints about the new garbage is fewer than before. It is arbitrary to draw any conclusions from the report above. Where is the report comes from, who made the report when the report was written and did the report embody all minds of the residents lived in two villages? Dates like that depending on unconvincing resources cannot represented that the new department saves money and improves service for residents in both Castorville and Pulluxton.

Secondly, the author fails to provide the any possible reasons to the decline number of users in Pulluxton library, but persists in blindly shutting the library in Pulluxton and using the library in Casstorville. Is it really useful in saving money and improving service? I don’t think so. For example, perhaps the decrease of readers is due to the harvest season, while people are all busied with reaping crops. As the fast developing of Internet, maybe some old user go to Internet to search for information.

Third, If as the author suggests, closing the library in Pulluxton, the result may dismay for residents there. For old users, they come no round to read, the only way is to go to the library in Castorville, it’s not only time-wasting, but also unconvenient. Moreover, for students, the former time spent in library may waste in front of television or computer games, that’s not for children’s growth and health. From the presume above, people lived in Pulluxton enjoy the slightest amount or degree benefit in the matter, not to say improving the service.

Last, but the most critical, the author making the suggestion relies on what might be a false analogy between garbage collection department and library. On one hand, the author overlooks the garbage department and library are severed for different aims. In order to analogy, the author must assume that all relevant circumstances involving the two are essentially the same. On the other hand, there is scant evidence that shutting library in Pulluxton would achieve the author’s aim by following garbage department’s example, because of the nature differences between the two, or the human being factors.

In sum, the argument is unpersuasive as it stands. To strengthen it the author must show more compelling evidence that closing the library in Pulluxton will actually saving money and making better service, but not just following the garbage department’s example. In order to better evaluate the argument, we would need more information about the official survey of new garbage department and the real reason for the decrease of library users.

第一篇argument，奋斗了3小时，不满500字。
而且基本上参考了北美范文的句型，从而体会到模版的重要性与必要性！
大家拍吧，让砖头来的更猛烈吧！~~~~向我开炮！

tingting_tUID: 2124800

This letter’s author recommends closing the library in Polluxton and using the library in Castorville as a good way for both villages. The author reasons that new garbage collection departments [department] relocated in Castorville was reported fewer complaints than before [这里似乎不太通] amalgamating garbage collection departments of Pulluxton and Castorville, so does the library [是不是应该用so will the library do?图书馆还没有关闭]. I find the argument logically unconvincing in three [four??] respects.

First of all, the author cited [cites，时态不太一致] the report that complaints about the new garbage is fewer than before. It is arbitrary to draw any conclusions from the report above. Where is [does] the report comes [come] from, who made the report [,?] when the report was written and did the report embody all minds of the residents lived in two villages? [反驳的很具体~不过这一句的时态有些混乱~] Dates like that depending on unconvincing resources cannot represented [represent] that the new department saves money and improves service for residents in both Castorville and Pulluxton.

Secondly, the author fails to provide the any possible reasons to the decline [declined] number of users in Pulluxton library, but persists in blindly shutting the library in Pulluxton and using the library in Casstorville. [感觉这句写的不错！赞一个] Is it really useful in saving money and improving service? I don’t think so. For example, perhaps the decrease of readers is due to the harvest season, while people are all busied with reaping crops. [题目中说是一年之中减少了20%，不应该用一个季节的例子去反驳吧] As the fast developing [development] of Internet, maybe some old user go to Internet [似乎没有这样的用法吧] to search for information.

Third [Thirdly], If as the author suggests, closing the library in Pulluxton, the result may dismay for [去掉for换作the] residents there. For old users, they come no round to read, the only way is to go to the library in Castorville, it’s not only time-wasting, but also unconvenient [inconvenient]. Moreover, for students, the former time spent in library may waste in front of television or computer games, that’s not [good] for children’s growth and health. From the presume [assumption, presume为动词] above, people lived in Pulluxton enjoy the slightest amount or degree [of] benefit in the matter, not to say improving the service.

Last, but the most critical, the author making the suggestion relies on what might be a false analogy between garbage collection department and library. On one hand, the author overlooks the garbage department and library are severed for different aims. In order to analogy [make an analogy], the author must assume that all relevant circumstances involving the two are essentially the same. On the other hand, there is scant evidence that shutting library in Pulluxton would achieve the author’s aim by following garbage department’s example, because of the nature [natural] differences between the two, or the human being factors.

In sum, the argument is unpersuasive as it stands. To strengthen it the author must show more compelling evidence that closing the library in Pulluxton will actually saving [save] money and making [make a] better service, but not just following the garbage department’s example. In order to better evaluate the argument, we would need more information about the official survey of new garbage department and the real reason for the decrease of library users.

tingting_tUID: 2124800

总的感觉还是相当不错的，反驳的内容也很有说服力
里面很多的句式和用法都值得学习呢~
不过在时态和词性方面要多注意一下啦~~
我也感觉模版比较好用，不过要形成自己的模版还是需要一定的练习

archyUID: 2147748

恩恩，感谢tingting的精彩拍砖，找到好多错误！
话说我这词汇还真的要加强加强啊！
今天去背单词，好久没动过红宝了......

george106UID: 180880

This letter’s author recommends closing the library in Polluxton and using the library in Castorville as a good way for both villages. The author reasons that new garbage collection departments department? relocated in Castorville was reported fewer complaints than before读起来怪怪的，than before 换成after如何？ amalgamating garbage collection departments of Pulluxton and Castorville, so does the library so will the library do?图书馆还没有关闭. I find the argument logically unconvincing in three 下文好象是4个吧，管他几个呢，用following如何？respects.

First of all, the author cited the report 去掉the reportthat complaints about the new garbage is fewer than before. It is arbitrary to draw any conclusions from the report above. Where is did? the report comes come from, who made the report ? when the report was writtenwhen was the report written? and did the report embodyinvolve? all minds kinds?还是有其他我不知道的意思？of the不要the residentswho lived in two villages? Dates怎么理解这个词？不明白 like that depending on unconvincing resources cannot represented represent that the new department saves money and improves service for residents in both Castorville and Pulluxton.

Secondly, the author fails to provide the 去掉the any possible reasons to the decline declined number of users in Pulluxton library, but persists in blindly shutting the library in Pulluxton and using the library in Casstorville. Is it really useful in saving money and improving service? I don’t think so觉得A中出现这句话不太好吧，太主观. For example, perhaps the decrease of readers is due to the harvest season, while people are all busied busywith reaping crops. As the fast developing development of Internet, maybe some old users go to Internet  to search for information.

Third Thirdly, If as the author suggests, closing the library in Pulluxton, the result may dismay for 去掉for换the residents there. For old users, they come no round to read, the only way is to go to the library in Castorville, it’s not only time-wasting, but also unconvenient inconvenient. Moreover, for students, the former time spent in library may waste in front of television or computer games, that’s not good for children’s growth and health这个论点好象不能支持dimay吧。。. From the presume assumption above, people lived in Pulluxton enjoy the slightest amount or degree of benefitin the matter, not to say improving the service.

Last, but the most critical, the author making the suggestion relies on what might be a false analogy between garbage collection department and library. On one hand, the author overlooks the garbage department and library are severed forserve for different aims. In order to analogy make an analogy, the author must assume that all relevant circumstances involving the two are essentially the same.总感觉那个involving the two 有问题 On the other hand, there is scant evidence that shutting library in Pulluxton would achieve the author’s aim by following garbage department’s example, because of the nature natural differences between the two, or the human being factors.

In sum, the argument is unpersuasive as it stands. To strengthen it the author must show more compelling evidence that closing the library in Pulluxton will actually saving save money and making make a better service, but not just following the garbage department’s example. In order to better evaluate the argument, we would need more information about the official survey of new garbage department and the real reason for the decrease of library users.

[ 本帖最后由 george106 于 2006-1-24 13:06 编辑 ]

lorraineyeUID: 2157370

This letter’s author recommends closing the library in Polluxton and using the library in Castorville as a good way for both villages. The author reasons 这是表示提供证据的意思吗？reason是推理出的意思。逻辑上反了 that new garbage collection departments单数 relocated in Castorville was reported fewer complaints than before amalgamating garbage collection departments of Pulluxton and Castorville这句话很怪，绕来绕去的，建议改成直叙：新合并的垃圾场几乎没报告什么投诉, so does the library 这一小句话想把类比的意思表达出来是不可能的，反而歪曲了题目的意思. I find the argument logically unconvincing in three下面是四段，这个是三方面？ respects. 这一段建议把图书馆减少的evidence也放上，因为一共也就这两个大问题，指出来比较全面。前面两句话修改一下的话，这段也并不会太长的

First of all, the author cited the report that complaints about the new garbage 新垃圾？？ is fewer than before 他只说few，并没有比较，没有必要自己把这层意思补充上. It is arbitrary to draw any conclusions单数 from the report above. Where is did the report comes from, who made the report , 喘口气 when the report was written and did the report embody all minds of the residents lived in two villages? Dates data like that depending on unconvincing resources cannot represented 原形 that the new department saves money and improves service for residents in both Castorville and Pulluxton.  这一段感觉有问题，似乎说得太仓促了，而且句子又长，最好把其他的可能性举几个反面例子出来会更有说服力

Secondly, the author fails to provide the去掉 any possible reasons to the decline declining number of users in Pulluxton library, but persists in blindly shutting the library in Pulluxton and using the library in Casstorville. Is it really useful in saving money and improving service? I don’t think so 这种表达不太客观，建议换成分析性强的句子. For example, perhaps the decrease of readers is due to the harvest season, while people are all busied with reaping crops archy真能想哈，都去田里了……村里的图书馆……呵呵，有趣。不过意思是对的. As the fast developing of Internet, maybe some old user go to Internet to search for information. 这段要驳斥的逻辑错误是对的，意思感觉也是到的。但问题在于驳斥的力度不够。反例举出来以后没有通过解释来彻底推翻题目，比如说丰收季节的收割是有可能的，但怎么就能说他们是因为收割而没去看书就不该关闭呢？一个季节的丰收影响了全年的总量是可能的，但应该点出来。而去年丰收了前年今年或者以后都不会有那么大的丰收那么忙的时候了所以图书馆的使用者不会再下降的确也是可能的，但如果不这样解释的话自己的驳论本身就不够说服力了？还有人们转向网络去找资料了，不是正说明图书馆使用者会越来越少吗？那真的该关掉了

Third, 加个even，语气更强烈If as the author suggests 建议改成即使作者对图书馆使用者变少的假设是对的，否则这句话连着下一句有点歧义, closing the library in Pulluxton, the result may dismay 对dismay这个词不太有把握，所以查了一下，词霸是这样解释的：dismay指“面临突然地令人惊吓、困惑或烦恼的事时, 表现畏惧、缺乏勇气或手足无措。照那么说可能用在这不大恰当。另外不知道dismay for的搭配是不是对 for residents there. For old users, they come no round to read, the only way is to go to the library in Castorville, it’s not only time-wasting 浪费时间是指，路远吧？点出来, but also unconvenient inconvenient. Moreover, for students, the former time spent in library may waste in front of television or computer games, that’s not 少形容词 for children’s growth and health 建议加一句解释，说有可能因为路远人们不去图书馆了，所以……这样逻辑上才是通顺合理的. From the presume above 应该是as what is presumed above, people livedlive in Pulluxton enjoy the slightest amount or degree benefit 这样说有点别扭，直接说没有证据表明他们得到任何好处 in the matter, not to say improving the service not to say的表达是很有力的，但是后面接improving service有点不对，改成人们对服务满意好了，这样上下两句的主语也是一致的.

Last, but the most critical 这个表达对吗……, the author making the suggestion relies 两个动词的形式反了，应该makes the suggestion relying on what might be 别可能了，就是的 a false analogy between garbage collection department and library. On one hand, the author overlooks that the garbage department and library are severed应该是主动愈态吧 for different aims怎么个不同目的法？怎么目的不同了就不能比较？不说明白就没有说服力. In order to analogy, the author must assume that all relevant circumstances involving the two are essentially the same 这句话也有点属于标准废话……正文当中这样出现不合适，其实什么意思都没说的. On the other hand on one hand 和on the other hand 的表达多用在两个相反的方面，所以这里建议改做 for one thing, for another thing, there is scant 这个词不太对 evidence that shutting library in Pulluxton would achieve the author’s aim by following garbage department’s example 建议把following garbage department’s example放到would之前, because of the nature differences between the two, or the human being factors一样的感觉，没说明白.

In sum, the argument is unpersuasive not as persuasive as it stands. To strengthen it the author must show more compelling 这个词不对 evidence that closing the library in Pulluxton will actually savingsave money and making make better service, but not just following the garbage department’s example. In order to better evaluate the argument 前面已经说过为了支持结论，所以这里用个moreover之类的就行了, we would need more information about the official survey of new garbage department and the real reason for the decrease of library users 其实这个和前面一句的evidence是相同的内容，保留一句就可以了

      总体看下来，逻辑错误都找到了，看来大家对于这种比较常规的问题还是找到点感觉了哈~我没看这篇在北美范文里的文章，不知道是不是你用了那里的一些高级的语句我没看懂所以当错给挑出来了……汗……如果是的话包涵哈.
      有一个感觉就是archy你在对长句子的把握上还需要再加强，有的句子写到最后出现一些主谓的问题和歧义，其实有的意思用短句或是简单点的表达更能达到理想的效果，那就没必要用多层的复合句了。还有写完之后把长句仔细地多读读可能就能发现问题了。
      还有一个问题是论证上的，总感觉有些逻辑错误点上没有把意思彻底地说明白，你的意思能理解，但是总是有点隔靴搔痒，最要害的话没有说出来。我想这就是我们在argument上最大的问题了吧，句式和找错误不难掌握，下点工夫就行了，但是怎样有力地驳斥是没有模板的，所以只能靠多研究范文多写多修改了，大家组队的目的就在这里了吧。
      有什么说得不对的地方多交流哈~

[ 本帖最后由 lorraineye 于 2006-1-24 18:55 编辑 ]

archyUID: 2147748

yeye改的真仔细！我回头要仔细研究！
太感谢了~~~