argument67[jet小组]第八次作业

yimengshanUID: 2392100

TOPIC: ARGUMENT67 - The following appearedin a letter to the editor of a newspaper serving the villages of Castorvilleand Polluxton.

"Both the villages of Castorville andPolluxton have experienced sharp declines in the numbers of residents who payproperty taxes. To save money and improve service, the two villages recentlymerged their once separate garbage collection departments into a singledepartment located in Castorville, and the new department has reported fewcomplaints about its service. Last year the library in Polluxton had 20 percentfewer users than during the previous year. It follows that we should nowfurther economize and improve service, as we did with garbage collection, byclosing the library in Polluxton and using the library in Castorville to serveboth villages."
WORDS:458         TIME: 上午 12:40:00          DATE: 2008-2-17

In the letter, the author recommends that Polluxtonshould close its library for the sake of economy and better service, then theboth villages use library in Castorville together, to support therecommendation, the author illustrates the combination of garbage collection,which seemingly obtains good outcome. However, after careful examination, the argumentis found unwarranted for the following reasons.

First, the argument is based on a falseanalogy, which assumes that the case of library is essentially the same withthe garbage collection. Yet, the author provides no evidence to substantiatethat assumption. It is entirely possible that residents of Polluxton villagehave diverse attitudes towards the two cases. For instance, perhaps they are infavor of the combination of garbage collections because it facilitates theirlives more convenient and effective, while oppose the close of library in theirvillage, which might consumes their more time to go to Castorville or otherinconvenience it brings. Without having a comprehensive comparison betweengarbage collection and library, it is irrational to make a rash decision justaccording to one case's circumstance.

Second, even assuming the analogy betweengarbage collection and library is effective, the author fails to take intoaccount the real reason why Polluxton library experienced a decline on itusers. Although less people have come to the library, perhaps the number ofbooks borrowed by users has indeed increased a lot. Or perhaps the library havecarried out some protection restrictions to limit the number of users, forovermuch people will have a negative influence on the books in the library. Theauthor just mentions the phenomenon of decline while provides no detailedinformation on it, and therefore the recommendation is actually unconvincing.

Finally, even assuming the number of usershas actually declined because of the service problem and so forth, the authorfails to convince us that using Caseville’s library will meet Polluxtonresident’s need. Perhaps the library in Castorville has smaller spaces thanPolluxton, and it restricts people to borrow books, or perhaps the library istoo far for residents in Polluxton to reach. All these scenarios, if true, theclose of library in Polluxton might lead to other intractable problems. Inshort, the author provides no evidence to prove the library in Castorville canreplace Polluxton library and solve present problems.

To sum up, the argument relies on someunsubstantial assumption and false analogy. To make it more convincing, theauthor should provide more evidence to prove the cases of garbage collectionand library are essentially alike. Moreover, more detailed information on thedecline of users of Polluxton should be considered. Finally, the author shouldmake a comprehensive comparison between the two libraries to explain theCastorville library can replace Polluxton library to serve all residents in thetwo villages.

[ 本帖最后由 yimengshan 于 2008-2-18 22:48 编辑 ]