argument67 【jet小组】第八次作业

dreamstringUID: 2389201

argument67
The following appeared in a letter to the editor of a newspaper serving the villages of Castorville and Polluxton.
words: 445

"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."

This argument recommends that to further economize and improve service, people who live in Castorville and Polluxton should close the library in Polluxton and use the library in Castorville, since the library in Polluxton had 20 percent fewer users than during the previous year. To justify this claim, the arguer provides evidence that the two villages recently combined their once separate garbage collection departments into a single department, and this action received few complaints. This argument, however, is fraught with vague, oversimplified and unwarranted assumption.

First of all, the arguer claims that library users in Polluxton had declined 20 percent, and then they should take effort to close the library in Polluxon and use the library in Castorville. However, both the two villages have experienced sharp declines in the numbers of residents. It is possible that the declination in Castorville is severer than in Polluxton. The arguer fails to provide statistical evidence to show which village has more residents. It might be worse if people in Castorville are less than Polluxton.

Secondly, even if residents in Polluxton are less than Castoville, simply analogizing actions which are available in garbage collection departments’ situation is a lack of careful cogitating. Similar activity might lead to diverse results. The arguer overlooks the problem that whether library in Castorville can serve two villages’ residents. If the arguer can not provide statistical data to prove that the number of the two villages’ residents is not large and library in Castoville can perform well, I can not be convinced that this recommendation is rational.

What is more, even if single library can handle requirements of two villages’ residents, whether this action is available in furthering economize and improving service is dubious. In this circumstance, people in Polluxton would have to travel to another village when they go to library. The increasing of travel need costs the village authority much to maintain the traffic system, which would suffer more pressure. Moreover, more travelling means more environment pollution. It is possible that the cost which is spent on protecting environment is more than keeping two libraries and the travelling trouble would bore people, and people might not go to library. If the arguer can not prove that this action would avoid these situations which are written above, this recommendation might be made too hasty.

In sum, this argument is full of flaws and is lack of careful cogitation. To improve it, the arguer should provide more information to prove that residents in Polluxton is less than Castorville and single library can serve two villages’ residents well. Moreover, the arguer should also prove that this recommendation can really further economize and improve service.