argument67 [076G飞跃小组]syjoli第一次作业 求拍

syjoliUID: 2296328

我是前些天才开始的，以前一直在考研，准备的比较仓促，逻辑也有点乱，希望大家多多指点。谢谢。

67.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."
Castorville和Polluxton两个村镇都经历了地产税纳税居民数量的下降。为节省开支并提高服务质量，两个村镇最近合并了它们一度独立的垃圾收集部门，成立了座落于Castorville的单一部门，新部门所上报的关于其服务的投诉很少。去年Polluxton的图书馆使用者比前一年减少20％。这表明我们现在应该象我们在垃圾收集方面所作的一样进一步经济化和提高服务，通过关闭Polluxton的图书馆和使用Castorville的图书馆来为两个村镇提供服务。

这次时间没限制，是断断续续写出来的。。



In this argument,the arguer concludes that merged two libraries from Polluxton and Castorville into one to serve both villages in order to save money and improve service.the author points out that the numbers of library in Polluxton had declined  by  20 percent compare  to last year. To support this conclusion,the arguer cites the fact that the two villages merged their garbage collection departments into a single one in Castorville attain the goal to save money and expense.However,The argument suffers from several logical fallacies.

First of all,the aruger commits a fallacy of hasty generaliztion.Even if it's effective merge two garbadge collection of Ca and PO's will save money and improve service for both of them.which is ,of course,unwarranted assumption,it does not follow that combined two libraries into one share also economize and improve service for Ca and Po's villages.As we know,To save money and improve service relies on serveral factors other than depends on combination.For instance,propaganda keeping clean envrinment is helpful for villagers health and supply more fresh air under blue sky for the sake of ehancing villagers' realization.or pay much attention to garbadge recycle constantly.all of which are ignored by the arguer.Besides,the arguer does not provide any information concerning how do they save money and improve service.Therefore,there is no evidence that it's reasonable to economize and improve service for closing the library in Polluxton and using the library in Castorville to serve both villages.

In the second place,the argument is based on false analogy,the arguer simply assumes that merged two garbadge collection departments of Po's and Ca's a into single one was located in Ca would save money and improve service.However,the author provide no evidence that single garbage collection would really economize and enhance service,Perhaps,the expense is much more than before,due to the distance between two villages have long way to go,especially for Po villagers inconvinently to discard trash than before,in other words,it will spend much time on garbage  collection.Therefore,they decide to close the library from Po and share with the same library  with Ca effective to save money and improve service,there is no guarantee that it will work just as well for combining two libraries into one for both villages of Ca and Po.

In the third place,the arguer claim that Both the villages of Castorville and Polluxton have experienced sharp declines in the numbers of residents who pay property taxes.the author provide no evidence that It does mean the total numbers of taxes from both villages were declined,Perhaps,move in the opposite direction,the whole taxes even rised even if the numbers of residents who pay property has declined,Perhaps,every resident hand in more taxes than before.So we need more clear information about the ways of saving money and improving serice.

In conclusion,the arguer fails to establish causal relationship between merged two garbage collection departments into single one to save money and improve service in terms of sharing one library for Polluxton and Castorville. To strengthen the argument,the arguer would have to provide evidence that one garbage collection department was effective and one library share really save money.To better evaluate the argument,we would need more information about villager's exact attitudes，actions and the distance bewteen two villages.



[ 本帖最后由 syjoli 于 2007-2-27 11:31 编辑 ]

hischildUID: 2143480

In this argument,the arguer concludes that (to) merged (原形)(the) two libraries from Polluxton and Castorville into one to(去掉) serve（改现在分词） both villages in order to (will) save money and improve service.the author points out that the numbers（users）of (the) library in Polluxton had declined  by  20 percent compared  to last year. To support this conclusion,the arguer cites the fact that the two villages merged their garbage collection departments into a single one in Castorville attains the goal to( of )save(saving) money and expense.However,The argument suffers from several logical fallacies.

First of all,the aruger commits a fallacy of hasty generaliztion.Even if it's effective (to)merge two garbadge collection of Ca and PO's will save money and improve service for both of them.which is ,of course,unwarranted assumption(有点罗嗦，精简一下),it does not follow that （to）combined (原形)（the）two libraries into one share(s) also economize and improve service for Ca and Po's villages.As we know,To save money and improve service relies on serveral factors other than depends on combination.For instance,(making)propaganda (for) keeping clean envrinment(拼错)is helpful for villagers health and supply more fresh air under blue sky for the sake of ehancing （和收垃圾没直接关系，不要找间接联系做论据）villagers' realization.or pay much attention to garbadge recycle constantly.all of which are ignored by the arguer.Besides,the arguer does not provide any information concerning how do they save money and improve service.Therefore,there is no evidence that it's reasonable to economize and improve service for closing the library in Polluxton and using the library in Castorville to serve both villages.（觉得这段没必要写那么多，显得有点罗嗦，模版用太多了，拙见:loveliness: ）

In the second place,the argument is based on false analogy,the arguer simply assumes that merged two garbadge collection departments of Po's and Ca's a into single one （用the merged department就可以了）was located in Ca would save money and improve service.However,the author provide no evidence that single garbage collection would really economize and enhance service,Perhaps,the expense is much more than before,due to the（long） distance between (the) two villages have long way to go(去掉),especially for Po villagers inconvinently to discard trash than before（怎么会不方便呢？丢垃圾可以不去C村，等收垃圾车就可以了）,in other words,it will spend much time on garbage  collection（逻辑问题）.Therefore,they decide to close the library from Po and share with （去掉）the same library（one）  with Ca (would be)effective to save money and improve service,there is no guarantee that it will work just as well for combining two libraries into one for both villages of Ca and Po.(问题是抄题目次数太多了，翻来覆去都是那几句话)

In the third place,the arguer claims that Both the villages of Castorville and Polluxton have experienced sharp declines in the numbers of residents who pay property taxes.the author provide no evidence that It does mean the total numbers of taxes from both villages were declined,Perhaps,move in the opposite direction,the whole taxes even rised even if the numbers of residents who pay property has declined,Perhaps(such as),every resident hand in more taxes than before.So we need more clear information about the ways of saving money and improving serice(拼错).

In conclusion,the arguer fails to establish causal relationship between merged two garbage collection departments into single one to save money and improve service in terms of sharing one library for Polluxton and Castorville. To strengthen the argument,the arguer would have to provide evidence that one garbage collection department was effective and one library share really save money.To better evaluate the argument,we would need more information about villager's exact attitudes，actions and the distance bewteen two villages.

我觉得你的问题是用词比较单一，而且题目中的一些意思和词可以适当归纳或用同义词替代。
多列列提纲训练下思路:)

hischildUID: 2143480

In this argument,the arguer concludes that (to) merged (原形)(the) two libraries from Polluxton and Castorville into one to(去掉) serve（改现在分词） both villages in order to (will) save money and improve service.the author points out that the numbers（users）of (the) library in Polluxton had declined  by  20 percent compared  to last year. To support this conclusion,the arguer cites the fact that the two villages merged their garbage collection departments into a single one in Castorville attains the goal to( of )save(saving) money and expense.However,The argument suffers from several logical fallacies.

First of all,the aruger commits a fallacy of hasty generaliztion.Even if it's effective (to)merge two garbadge collection of Ca and PO's will save money and improve service for both of them.which is ,of course,unwarranted assumption(有点罗嗦，精简一下),it does not follow that （to）combined (原形)（the）two libraries into one share(s) also economize and improve service for Ca and Po's villages.As we know,To save money and improve service relies on serveral factors other than depends on combination.For instance,(making)propaganda (for) keeping clean envrinment(拼错)is helpful for villagers health and supply more fresh air under blue sky for the sake of ehancing （和收垃圾没直接关系，不要找间接联系做论据）villagers' realization.or pay much attention to garbadge recycle constantly.all of which are ignored by the arguer.Besides,the arguer does not provide any information concerning how do they save money and improve service.Therefore,there is no evidence that it's reasonable to economize and improve service for closing the library in Polluxton and using the library in Castorville to serve both villages.（觉得这段没必要写那么多，显得有点罗嗦，模版用太多了，拙见:loveliness: ）

In the second place,the argument is based on false analogy,the arguer simply assumes that merged two garbadge collection departments of Po's and Ca's a into single one （用the merged department就可以了）was located in Ca would save money and improve service.However,the author provide no evidence that single garbage collection would really economize and enhance service,Perhaps,the expense is much more than before,due to the（long） distance between (the) two villages have long way to go(去掉),especially for Po villagers inconvinently to discard trash than before（怎么会不方便呢？丢垃圾可以不去C村，等收垃圾车就可以了）,in other words,it will spend much time on garbage  collection（逻辑问题）.Therefore,they decide to close the library from Po and share with （去掉）the same library（one）  with Ca (would be)effective to save money and improve service,there is no guarantee that it will work just as well for combining two libraries into one for both villages of Ca and Po.(问题是抄题目次数太多了，翻来覆去都是那几句话)

In the third place,the arguer claims that Both the villages of Castorville and Polluxton have experienced sharp declines in the numbers of residents who pay property taxes.the author provide no evidence that It does mean the total numbers of taxes from both villages were declined,Perhaps,move in the opposite direction,the whole taxes even rised even if the numbers of residents who pay property has declined,Perhaps(such as),every resident hand in more taxes than before.So we need more clear information about the ways of saving money and improving serice(拼错).

In conclusion,the arguer fails to establish causal relationship between merged two garbage collection departments into single one to save money and improve service in terms of sharing one library for Polluxton and Castorville. To strengthen the argument,the arguer would have to provide evidence that one garbage collection department was effective and one library share really save money.To better evaluate the argument,we would need more information about villager's exact attitudes，actions and the distance bewteen two villages.

我觉得你的问题是用词比较单一，而且题目中的一些意思和词可以适当归纳或用同义词替代。
多列列提纲训练下思路:)

syjoliUID: 2296328

hischild (布布) thx a lot,这次真的辛苦你了。

syjoliUID: 2296328

我刚刚认真的看了一下，主要是逻辑思路有问题，以及用词替换方面比较欠缺。等会再改一下，，谢谢你哦。。