argument67 18号考试了,谢谢人家帮忙。

annasweeUID: 2294850

TOPIC: 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."
WORDS: 518         TIME: 0:20:18          DATE: 2007-4-13

According to the argument, the author concludes that in order to further economize and improve service, they should close the library in Polluxton(p) meanwhile use the one in Castorville(c) to serve both villages. In order to support his conclusion, the author also cites us a few convincing evidence at first glance. However, after deep analysis, several logic flaws are obvious.

To begin with, the author fails to prove success of the recent merge. Browsing the whole article, the author only shows that the new department has reported few complaints about its service. However, what can it explain? Are the complaints really as few as the dept reported? Maybe the dept only reports few while conceals the most in order to console people in two villages because they were newly merged, everything maybe in a mass. Great number of complaints may causes people lose their confidence in the merge. Or perhaps there is nowhere for people to mention their unsatisfying due to the uncompleted system of management. Granted that the complaints are less, the service has improved. The author still can not prove the merge is successful. Whether this kind of way help the two villages save money no evidence demonstrated. So unless the author proves that money is saved, we do not believe such a merge is successful.

Moreover, granted that the merge of the garbage collection departments is successful, the author still can not convince us that the library needs annexation, without mentioning the reference to the garbage collection dept. The author only establishes that the library has 20% less customers last years compared with previous years. Nonetheless, this is not cogent. The author does not mention in the argument that the reason that the less customers is due to whether their unwillingness to coming because of the bad service or the library itself close half of the business hours owing to the decoration last year. Also, it is obvious that these are the two dept. So the reference between each other is little because of the different operating system, function, way of management, which amounts to that the success on garbage collection dept may not be suitable for the library. On the other hand, no evidence shows that the

Furthermore, even if the library needs annexation, which dose not stand it should refer to the garbage collection dept with all the same steps without effective changing such as the decision of the place. Maybe it is convenient for people to park the truck for trash collection because of the large spaces in C so that the location of garbage collection chosen in C. However, the library is not the same. More to consider is about the convenience for people to come to the library, so perhaps locate the library in P will be more suitable due to the developed transporting system..

All in all, this argument is weak. In order to better support the conclusion the author should cite us that the demonstration of the success in garbage collection dept and the necessary of the annexation of the library. Then, such a conclusion may be plausible.


[ 本帖最后由 annaswee 于 2007-4-15 18:19 编辑 ]