Argument67 [Jet小姐]第八次作业 第七篇A，欢迎拍砖

goldin2008UID: 2140085

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: 566          TIME: 0:30:00          DATE: 2008-2-19
提纲：
1.     前提：为了应对library使用者的减少，我们应该进一步节约，并改善服务。这个前提可能就是错的，我们根本没有必要这么做。使用者的减少可能是因为最近工作压力大，没有时间去library，并不是因为服务，过一段时间人数自然会多的；周围有了更加好的library；生活习惯的改变，人们更愿意在线看书，而不是去library. 如果是这样即使再节约，改进服务也无济于事。
2.     有必要对library进行对策，也不是通过这种方式。读者数量的减少可能是因为对library设施的不满，应该增加投入而不是减少；如果共享一个library会使资源更加少，会引起更多的不满。
3.     即使这么做了，也不能节约和改善服务，错误类比，二者没有可比性，成功经验不一定适用在library。而且也许library建在P更合适。
In the argument, the author draws a conclusion that the villages of Castorville and Polluxton should further economize and improve service of the library. He points out that in order to achieve their goal, they should close the library in Polluxton and use the library in Castorville to serve both villages and cites many facts and evidences to support his assertion. However, through a logical and precise scrutiny, I become aware of several fallacies in the argument that should be questioned and criticized.

As a threshold matter, even if I concede that closing the library in Polluxton and using the library in Castorville to serve both villages can serve to further economize and improve services of the library, the conclusion is still merely based on a dubious and unsound premise that the villages should make change in face of the number of users declining. It is entirely possible that residents’ satisfaction for the service is not the significant factor responsible for the decline, at least not the only one. The arguer fails to consider and rule out other alternative explanations. Such alternatives might include that fact that the residents have no time to read in library due to life and work expression recently, but after not a long time, they will return to the library. Or perhaps, they have changed their reading habits and begin to like to read on line instead of in library. Any of these scenarios, if true, would undermine the conclusion. To substantiate the assumption or justify the claim, the speaker should provide sufficient evidence. Thus, regardless of whether the facts and evidences used to support the premise are adequate, the author cannot convince me that the villages of Castorville and Polluxton should further economize and improve service of the library.

In addition, the arguer fails to consider the credibility of the evidence. He cites evidence and claims that in order to change the situation the villages should close the library in Polluxton and use the library in Castorville to serve both villages. However, if so, the situation might become more serious. It is possible that the residents are satisfied with the facilities or the environment in the library. If the villages would change the serious situation, they should invest more money rather than further economize.

Finally, the speaker commits a fallacy of false analogy. The mere fact that merging once separate garbage collection departments into a single department located in Castorville can serve to save money and improve service is scant evidence that the villages would achieve their goal by following former example. After all, the library is very different from the garbage collection. Perhaps the same course of action would be ineffective on library. Meanwhile, why use the library in Castorville to serve both villages? Maybe the library in Polluxton is more appropriate.

To sum up, the argument, while it seems logical at first, has many flaws as discussed above. The speaker commits a fallacy of hasty generalization. It could be improved by providing evidence that through closing the library in Polluxton and using the library in Castorville to serve both villages can serve to save money and improve service. It could be further improved by providing evidence that the villages must further economize and improve service in order to avoid the decline continuing. If the argument was given the factors discussed above, it would have been thorough and adequate.

[ 本帖最后由 goldin2008 于 2008-2-19 04:24 编辑 ]