Argument67 [Victors小组]第十三次作业

乳虎UID: 2251211

67The following appeared in a letter to the editor of a newspaper serving the villages of Castorville and Polluxton.
提纲：
1作者没有证明垃圾处理场的合并节省了处理垃圾的成本。
2作者犯了错误类比的错误，图书馆提供的服务和垃圾处理场不同。

"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."



In this argument the arguer reports that via merging the garbage collections, few complaints about the service of garbage department has been reported. On the basis the arguer asserts that in order to save money and improve service, Village Polluxton should close library in Polluxton and usethe library in Village Castorville to serve both villages. Actually, the argument involves a series of logical flaws.

Firstly, the purpose of merging the garbage departments is to save money and improve service, the arguer only inform that after merging the new garbage department report fewer complaints about the service, but not inform us whether the cost has decreased. So it is worthwhile to doubt whether the cost keep constant even rise. In fact, after the merging, the garbage of village Polluxton must be transported to Village Castorville which will inevitably increase the cost. In that case, although the service is improved, the merging is not economical.

Secondly even if the mergence is beneficial, it can not ensure a similar one to libraries will improve service and save money too. Commonsense tells us, garbage emit terrible smell and nourish flies, rats etc which will transfer disease. Of cause, the residents will complain fewer after the garbage in Village Polluxton was closed. On the contrary, library supply books to the residents, which is popular. If the library in Village Polluxton was closed, thus the residents in Village Polluxton was forced to borrow books from the library in Village Castorville, they have to expense cost in money and time. So the merging is doomed to fail be popular.

To sum up, the arguer commits a series of logical flaws which renders the argument not tenable as it stands. In order to consolidate it, the arguer must prove that the mergence decrease the cost of disposing garbage decreases. Additionally, he must provide the evidence which indicates that similar mergence of library can improve the service and save money.

[ 本帖最后由 乳虎 于 2007-7-21 22:48 编辑 ]

njuzhshaoUID: 2258118

67The following appeared in a letter to the editor of a newspaper serving the villages of Castorville and Polluxton.
提纲：
1作者没有证明垃圾处理场的合并节省了处理垃圾的成本。
2作者犯了错误类比的错误，图书馆提供的服务和垃圾处理场不同。

"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."



In this argument the arguer reports that via merging the garbage collections, few complaints about the service of garbage department has been reported. On the basis the arguer asserts that in order to save money and improve service, Village Polluxton should close library in Polluxton and use the library in Village Castorville to serve both villages. Actually, the argument involves a series of logical flaws.

Firstly, the purpose of merging the garbage departments is to save money and improve service, the arguer only inform that after merging the new garbage department [主语?]report fewer complaints about the service, but [does]not inform us whether the cost has decreased. So it is worthwhile to doubt whether the cost keep constant even rise. In fact, after the merging, the garbage of village Polluxton must be transported to Village Castorville which will inevitably increase the cost. In that case, although the service is improved, the merging is not economical.

Secondly even if the mergence is beneficial, it can not ensure a similar one[指代什么？上句里没有相应的名词，如果是指代mergence的话是不是有可数不可数的问题] to libraries will improve service and save money too. Commonsense tells us, garbage emit terrible smell and nourish flies[emit fly、rats 似乎不是很妥], rats etc which will transfer disease. Of cause[course], the residents will complain fewer after the garbage in Village Polluxton was closed. On the contrary, library supply books to the residents, which is popular. If the library in Village Polluxton was[is] closed, thus the residents in Village Polluxton was[事态不要混用了,will be] forced to borrow books from the library in Village Castorville, they [will]have to expense cost in money and time. So the merging is doomed to fail be popular.

To sum up, the arguer commits a series of logical flaws which renders the argument not tenable as it stands. In order to consolidate it, the arguer must prove that the mergence decrease the cost of disposing garbage decreases. Additionally, he must provide the evidence which indicates that similar mergence of library can improve the service and save money.

[文章思路没有问题了，词也很少有问题，从三篇看来句法有些需要注意的，有些很明显的语法错误改掉了会感觉好很多；可以考虑少量复杂一点的句式的使用作为闪光点]