Argument67,求拍，一定认真回拍

StrayCrowUID: 2348763

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."



In this argument, the author professes according to the success of combining the garbage collection departments in Castorville and Polluxton, residents in both villages should close the library in Polluxton and only use the library in Castorville to save money and improve service further. Mainly based on the case of combination of two villages' garbage collection departments and the fact that fewer users of the library in Polluxton, this argument is well presented but is still far from satisfactorily reasoned. In fact, the thread of the argument is based on several assumptions and logic flaws.

To begin with, I really wonder whether the combination of garbage collection departments in two villages is an effective method of economizing and improving service. At first, when the combination was finished and there is only a single department located in Castorville, the rubbish in Polluxton must be sent to Castorville from now on and can not be solved easily in Polluxton itself. Therefore, for this matter, the residents of Polluxton must pay an extra fee for rubbish transportation and this is a conflict with the original aim of saving money. Secondly, in this argument the author claimed that the new department has reported few complaints about its service. However, in my own perspective, it does not mean the residents of both villages, especially the residents from Polluxton, are satisfied with the new garbage collection's service. It is entirely possible that since the departments were founded just now, many unsatisfied residents failed to find methods or official department to complain. Besides, we can not rule out the possibilities that the new department was not honest and did not reported all the complaints. Hence, only considering of limit information given by this argument, we can not tell whether the combination of two garbage collection department really helps two villages to save money and improve service.

Even if the case of garbage collections' combination in fact has a positive effect on two villages' economy and service. Is it necessary to combine two villages' library? In this argument, the author mentioned that the library in Polluxton had 20 percent fewer users last year. However, the author did not provide any information about the number of readers now. Perhaps last year Polluxton suffered bad weather all through the year, in view of the traffic problem, library users in Polluxton prefer do reading at home to go to library. It is also very likely that last year Polluxton's library had a rebuilding project and was not open to their users for 3 months. In this way, it is natural to see the decline of the number of library users. To sum up, if authors can not rule out these possible scenarios above, I refuse to believe that author's conclusion is reasonable.

Furthermore, if the users of Polluxton library are really fewer and fewer, in order to further economize and improve service, is it a really wise decision for two villages' residents to close the library in Polluxton and only use the library in Castorville? Here, we must compare the numbers of library users between two villages at first otherwise only consider the users change in Polluxton. Perhaps, in spite of the library users' decline in Polluxton, the number of library users in Polluxton is still overwhelmingly larger than that in Castorville. If this is the fact, to close Polluxton library and drive enormous readers in Polluxton to Castorville library will become the biggest joke of two villages' government. Besides, the quantity of books and library's size is also important for residents from two villiages to make a right decision. If Polluxton library's books and size are all many times than Castorville's, to combine two libraries and only use the Castorville one means a huge rebuilding engineering of Castorville library whose aim is to provide extra space for Polluxton's books. We can predict this huge rebuilding project will cost large amount of money. For this matter, "Save more money" will be a just slogan and a dream out of reach. Last but not least, no matter which library will be closed, we can not deny such a situation that the residents who lose their library will have less chance to do reading in library when they think about the traffic problem. Even though the traffic between two villages is convenient, some old and children are still unable to get into library by themselves. And this must be a big shock on one village's education and culture development which both play the most important roles in modern society.
Therefore, considering so many factors mentioned above, author's limit information is hard to convince me that two residents will benefit from this proposal.

In sum, in this argument, facts and cases provided by the author can not give strong support to his or her own proposal. In order to bolster the conclusion and make argument more convincing, the arguer must show more evidences about the success of combination of two villages' garbage collection departments. And we also must know more information about the exact numbers of two villages' library users, books and sizes.

kingploughUID: 2492921

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."



In this argument, the author professes according to the success（可是你文中质疑了它的success阿） of combining the garbage collection departments in Castorville and Polluxton, residents in both villages should close the library in Polluxton and only use the library in Castorville to save money and improve service further（赞一下这句！）. Mainly based on the case of combination of two villages' garbage collection departments and the fact that fewer users of the library in Polluxton, this argument is well presented but is still far from satisfactorily reasoned. In fact, the thread of the argument is based on several assumptions and logic flaws.

To begin with, I really wonder whether the combination of garbage collection departments in two villages is an effective method of economizing and improving service（是否有些重复，不直白）. At first, when the combination was finished（after the combination）and there is only a single department located in Castorville, the rubbish in Polluxton must be sent to Castorville from now on and can not be solved easily in Polluxton itself. Therefore, for this matter, the residents of Polluxton must pay an extra fee for rubbish transportation and this is a conflict with the original aim of saving money(这点只能是推测吧) . Secondly, in this argument the author claimed that the new department has reported few complaints about its service. However, in my own perspective, it does not mean the residents of both villages, especially the residents from Polluxton, are satisfied with the new garbage collection's service. It is entirely possible that since the departments were founded just now, many unsatisfied residents failed to find methods or official department to complain. Besides, we can not rule out the possibilities that the new department was not honest and did not reported all the complaints. Hence, only considering of limit information given by this argument, we can not tell whether the combination of two garbage collection department really helps two villages to save money and improve service.（语言和逻辑很赞阿！只是。。。可不可以再少用一些长句啊嘿嘿）

Even if the case of garbage collections' combination in fact has a positive effect on two villages' economy and service.， Is it necessary to combine two villages' library? In this argument, the author mentioned that the library in Polluxton had 20 percent fewer users last year. However, the author did not provide any information about the number of readers now. Perhaps last year Polluxton suffered bad weather all through the year, in view of the traffic problem, library users in Polluxton prefer do reading at home to go to library（是否可以提网上购书之类的？毕竟使用图书馆也包括借来书在家看啊）. It is also very likely that last year Polluxton's library had a rebuilding project and was not open to their users for 3 months. In this way, it is natural to see the decline of the number of library users. To sum up, if authors can not rule out these possible scenarios above, I refuse to believe that author's conclusion is reasonable.（这段的语言表达准确，简练！）

Furthermore, if the users of Polluxton library are really fewer and fewer, in order to further economize and improve service, is it a really wise decision for two villages' residents to close the library in Polluxton and only use the library in Castorville? Here, we must compare the numbers of library users between two villages at first otherwise only consider the users change in Polluxton（otherwise好像用的不妥。其实已经有了at first，otherwise 后半句可以不用了）. Perhaps, in spite of the library users' decline in Polluxton, the number of library users in Polluxton is still overwhelmingly larger than that in Castorville. If this is the fact, to close Polluxton library and drive enormous readers in Polluxton to Castorville library will become the biggest joke of two villages' government（哈哈，赞阿）. Besides, the quantity of books and library's size is also important for residents from two villiages to make a right decision. If Polluxton library's books and size are all many times than Castorville's, to combine two libraries and only use the Castorville one means a huge rebuilding engineering of Castorville library whose aim is to provide extra space for Polluxton's books. We can predict this huge rebuilding project will cost large amount of money. For this matter, "Save more money" will be a just slogan and a dream out of reach. Last but not least, no matter which library will be closed, we can not deny such a situation that the residents who lose their library will have less chance to do reading in library when they think about the traffic problem. Even though the traffic between two villages is convenient, some old and children are still unable to get into library by themselves. And this must be a big shock on one village's education and culture development which both play the most important roles in modern society.
Therefore, considering so many factors mentioned above, author's limit information is hard to convince me that two residents？ will benefit from this proposal.这段论证太精彩了

In sum, in this argument, facts and cases provided by the author can not give strong support to his or her own proposal. In order to bolster the conclusion and make argument more convincing, the arguer must show more evidences about the success of combination of two villages' garbage collection departments. And we also must know more information about the exact numbers of two villages' library users, books and sizes（这句可以倒装一下，跟上句不同嘛）.

你这篇写得很好，逻辑论证紧密丰富，语言也很多变活泼。除了个别用法我觉得不够直白，绕了一点，别的我也挑不出什么毛病了。
你一直说我语言没有问题，其实我写作过程中最头疼就是语言，总是找不到丰富的表达方法，这点要向你学习。
ETS怎么打分，我也搞不清楚。我觉得你这篇已经很有范文的风范了。
关于限时，我觉得哪怕限时过后再改，一定要在模考软件里面写作文，限时的时候会暴露自己很多缺点，比如经常写错的词，以及一些用法的不熟练之处。多改自己的限时作文，会有好处。其次锻炼自己在1分钟内列出逻辑提纲也很有好处。

mqi07UID: 2521740

In this argument, the author professes according to the success of combining the garbage collection departments in Castorville and Polluxton, residents in both villages should close the library in Polluxton and only use the library in Castorville to save money and improve service further. Mainly based on the case of combination of two villages' garbage collection departments and the fact that fewer users of the library in Polluxton, this argument is well presented but is still far from satisfactorily reasoned. In fact, the thread of the argument is based on several assumptions and logic flaws.

To begin with, I really wonder whether the combination of garbage collection departments in two villages is an effective method of economizing and improving service. At first, when the combination was finished and there is only a single department located in Castorville, the rubbish in Polluxton must be sent to Castorville from now on and can not be solved easily in Polluxton itself. Therefore, for this matter, the residents of Polluxton must(might是否更好) pay an extra fee for rubbish transportation and this is a conflict with the original aim of saving money(好). Secondly, in this argument the author claimed that the new department has reported few complaints about its service. However, in my own perspective, it does not mean the residents of both villages, especially the residents from Polluxton, are satisfied with the new garbage collection's service. It is entirely possible that since the departments were founded just now, many unsatisfied residents failed to find methods or official department to complain(to). Besides, we can not rule out the possibilities that the new department was not honest and did not reported all the complaints(是否虚拟语气更好?). Hence, only considering of limit (limited)information given by this argument, we can not tell whether the combination of two garbage collection department really helps two villages to save money and improve service.

Even if the case of garbage collections' combination in fact has a positive effect on two villages' economy and service. Is it necessary to combine two villages' library? In this argument, the author mentioned that the library in Polluxton had 20 percent fewer users last year. However, the author did not provide any information about the number of readers now. Perhaps last year Polluxton suffered bad weather all through the year, in view of the traffic problem, library users in Polluxton prefer do reading at home to go to library. It is also very likely that last year Polluxton's library had a rebuilding project and was not open to their users for 3 months. In this way, it is natural to see the decline of the number of library users(这段应该是质疑合并图书馆是否有必要,而这些论据更能说明的是Less users in p 不一定是由于人们对P不满意从而不愿意去所造成的, 因此更适合用于下面的那段论证; 若就合并图书馆的不必要性展开讨论,我觉得可以从合并垃圾场不能推出就一定要合并图书馆这方面下手). To sum up, if authors can not rule out these possible scenarios above, I refuse to believe that author's conclusion is reasonable.

Furthermore, if the users of Polluxton library are really fewer and fewer, in order to further economize and improve service, is it a really wise decision for two villages' residents to close the library in Polluxton and only use the library in Castorville? Here, we must compare the numbers of library users between two villages at first otherwise only consider the users change in Polluxton.(很清晰简洁并且指出了"硬伤", 学习!) Perhaps, in spite of the library users' decline in Polluxton, the number of library users in Polluxton is still overwhelmingly larger than that in Castorville. If this is the fact, to close Polluxton library and drive enormous readers in Polluxton to Castorville library will become the biggest joke of two villages' government(生动的语言啊,学习!). Besides, the quantity of books and library's size is also important for residents from two villiages to make a right decision. If Polluxton library's books and size are all many times than Castorville's, to combine two libraries and only use the Castorville one means a huge rebuilding engineering of Castorville library whose aim is to provide extra space for Polluxton's books. We can predict this huge rebuilding project will cost large amount of money. For this matter, "Save more money" will be a just slogan and a dream out of reach(我决得你这点说的特别好,不仅视角比较独特,而且很精确的扣住了一点"save money"). Last but not least, no matter which library will be closed, we can not deny such a situation that the residents who lose their library will have less chance to do reading in library when they think about the traffic problem. Even though the traffic between two villages is convenient, some old and children are still unable to get into library by themselves. And this must be a big shock on one village's education and culture development which both play the most important roles in modern society.(语言咋都这么好泥? 羡慕ING)
Therefore, considering so many factors mentioned above, author's limit(limited) information is hard to convince me that two residents will benefit from this proposal.

In sum, in this argument, facts and cases provided by the author can not give strong support to his or her own proposal. In order to bolster the conclusion and make argument more convincing, the arguer must show more evidences about the success of combination of two villages' garbage collection departments. And we also must know more information about the exact numbers of two villages' library users, books and sizes.

要向你学习语言,不是很摸班化的语言
可以感觉到LZ的ARGU思维已经很成熟了, 看来一定是练习了很多的结果吧
帮我也看看吧,国庆出去玩就荒废了好长时间啊, 现在要急死了,泪奔.....
https://bbs.gter.net/thread-882585-1-1.html