Argument67 Spring-第五次作业 求拍必回！

dairuxin512UID: 2178329

Argument 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."
字数：697   用时：2小时   

In this argument, the writer suggests that in order to save money and to improve service, the villages of Castorville and Polluxton should merge their library like they have done with garbage collection. The reason he or she holds is that when considering the decrease of taxes, the two villages have merged their garbage collection departments recently and the new department seems to win better reflects. After closer examine with the suggestion and evidence the writer provided, however, I find several logical flaws making the advice unbelievable.

First of all, no sufficient evidence is provided to prove the new merged garbage collection department has reached the former aim. In the argument, the writer says the reason for merging garbage collection department is to save money and to improve service. What is the expense of the new department? No comparison between previous costs and present costs, we cannot judge whether building new department really save money. Turn to the service aspect, though the author says that the new department has reported few complaints about its service, it maybe an uncertain and unstable statistical data because the department built recently, or the manager of the new garbage department might conceals actual data to avoid critique from higher authorities or the masses. Anyhow, the example of this merged new garbage collection department is not adequate to demonstrate this emerging method is an effective way to save money and improve service.

Secondarily, even when we assume that the results of new garbage collection department is like what the writer says in the argument, I cannot accept his or her advice about processing library like did with garbage collection. First, in general, people usually put their garbage outside their door rather than send them to garbage collection department by themselves. So garbage collection process is transparent to residents and they do not concern where the garbage collection department is built. However, most residents concern the place that their library is built in since they may visit library very often. And residents hope that library is closer to their home, especially families with children when considering the safe of their kids. Furthermore, if emerging two libraries into one, the new library should serve for more readers and the quality of service may not be guaranteed. And it is possible for government to build another new larger library to contain cutely increasing readers and resources, such as more books, magazines and other materials, which means more money would be invest in library emerging project. Therefore, considering inconvenience may bringing to residents in Polluxton, possible decline of quality service and increase in cost, the writer’s suggestion about merging library is not a wise advice.

Finally, the writer neither analyzes thoroughly the embarrassment that Polluxton’s library has met nor considers alternative methods to solve the problem of library. Though the writer says that last year the library in Polluxton had 20 percent fewer users than during the previous year, the loss of readers in one year not represents that the number of readers will decline sharply in future years. It is possible that the condition of last year is unusual one because many people who love reading were busy with their work or other things and they have less leisure time to visit library. Or due to dissatisfaction with the quality of library service (attitudes of staffs, sorts and contents of books, etc.) some people abandon going to the library. On the other hand, some alternative solutions should be discussed, such as strengthening incentives to enhance service quality, reducing purchasing some books or magazines which are not popular to save money. Regardless the former negligence or the later one, the writer should not put forward a proposal without serious consideration.

In conclusion, the argument with so many logical fallacies cannot stand reasonably. Unless more powerful evidence provided to descript good results bringing by the new garbage collection department, we cannot certain that the merging strategy is effective to save money and improve service. In addition, the writer cannot decide to use the similar method used in garbage collection to solve library problem before more thorough and comprehensive analysis carrying on with the condition of library itself.

lifeng_913UID: 2397925

In this argument, the writer suggests that in order to save money and to improve service, the villages of Castorville and Polluxton should merge their library as they have done with garbage collection. The reason he or she holds is that when considering the decrease of taxes, the two villages have merged their garbage collection departments recently and the new department seems to win better reflects.(感觉这句话说的不太专业了,可用points out that...,then the author reasons that.....) After closer examine with the suggestion and evidence the writer provided, however, I find several logical flaws making the advice unbelievable.(没有必要可以把语言调整到和北美范文完全不一样,总结性语言可以参照,如Although the argument appears plausible, I find the arguer's reasoning weak, for three reasons. )

First of all, no sufficient evidence is provided to prove the new merged garbage collection department has reached the former aim. In the argument, the writer says the reason for merging garbage collection department is to save money and to improve service. (say完全可以用一些适当的攻击性词汇如indicate, recommand, assume等等)What is the expense of the new department?(设问句很少见) No comparison between previous costs and present costs, we cannot judge whether building new department really save money. Turn to the service aspect, though the author says that the new department has reported few complaints about its service, it may be an uncertain and unstable statistical data because the department built recently, or the manager of the new garbage department might conceals actual data to avoid critique from higher authorities or the masses. (感觉这句话很别扭,或者是我读范文读得太习惯了,句子的意思很难理解,不如 The author provides no sufficent evidence that..., it is entirely possible that...是完全可以套到上面的内容里面的,而且条理特别清晰)Anyhow, the example of this merged new garbage collection department is not adequate to demonstrate this emerging method is an effective way to save money and improve service.

Secondarily, (even if the rusults of ...is statistics reliable) even when we assume that the results of new garbage collection department is like what the writer says in the argument, I cannot accept his or her advice about processing library like did with garbage collection. First, in general, people usually put their garbage outside their door rather than send them to garbage collection department by themselves. Therefore, garbage collection process is transparent to residents and they do not concern where the garbage collection department is built. However, most residents concern the place that their library is built in since they may visit library very often. Moreover, residents hope that library is closer to their home, especially families with children when considering the sale of their kids. Furthermore, if emerging two libraries into one, the new library should serve for more readers and the quality of service may not be guaranteed. And it is possible for government to build another new larger library to contain cutely increasing readers and resources, such as more books, magazines and other materials, which means more money would be invest in library emerging project. Therefore, considering inconvenience may bringing to residents in Polluxton, possible decline of quality service and increase in cost, the writer’s suggestion about merging library is not a wise advice.

Finally, the writer neither analyzes thoroughly the embarrassment that Polluxton’s library has met nor considers alternative methods to solve the problem of library. Though the writer says that last year the library in Polluxton had 20 percent fewer users than during the previous year, the loss of readers in one year not represents that the number of readers will decline sharply in future years. It is possible that the condition of last year is unusual one because many people who love reading were busy with their work or other things and they have less leisure time to visit library. On the other hand, due to dissatisfaction with the quality of library service (attitudes of staffs, sorts and contents of books, etc.) some people abandon going to the library. On the other hand, some alternative solutions should be discussed, such as strengthening incentives to enhance service quality, reducing purchasing some books or magazines which are not popular to save money. Regardless the former negligence or the later one, the writer should not put forward a proposal without serious consideration.

In conclusion, the argument with so many(suffers form ) logical fallacies cannot(which make it stand unconvincing) stand reasonably. Unless more evidence that is powerful provided to descript good results bringing by the new garbage collection department, we cannot certain that the merging strategy is effective to save money and improve service. In addition, the writer cannot decide to use the similar method used in garbage collection to solve library problem before more thorough and comprehensive analysis carrying on with the condition of library itself.

觉得整篇刻意在形成自己的语言风格,这是很好的,但好象还未能很流畅的使用,不妨使用些背诵的经典句子吧.自己的语言感觉略微有点不成熟.
实在不好意思,由于我没太看明白你的文章,所以没办法在逻辑上帮你改正.其实ARGU大家写的都一个样子,没必要非要变化.

[ 本帖最后由 lifeng_913 于 2007-12-3 21:10 编辑 ]