Argument 67 dganggang (kito) 超时1min 等候本组高人杀我个血淋淋

dganggangUID：2125101

67The 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.'

提纲：垃圾场的例子缺乏必要信息来论证
         图书馆的例子更加没有任何必要说明
         整个结论的因果关系是错误类比

This argument is made of two major parts. One is the prerequisite that few complaints have been reported when the two villages merge their garbage collection departments into one, therefore, the arguer suggests that they should do the same to save the library in Polluxton.

The arguer has given us a lot of information to prove its point but unfortunately his conclusion is based on some seriously logic mistakes.

First of all, the prerequisite is so groundless that the arguer fails to prove its credibility. On the one hand, there is no specific cause about why there have been sharp declines in the number of residents who pay property taxes in the two villages. On the other hand, probably with no further survey of real causes, the project to merge the two separate garbage collection departments into a single one has been implemented. Thus, the arguer contributes the achievement that few complaints about the service to this project in hasty and groundlessly made a unnoticed but clear conclusion that it seems the "two in one" project is extremely powerful in solving all the problems.

Secondly, the arguer makes absolutely no remarks or provides us any necessary details about why the library in P had 20 percent fewer users than during the previous year.  We just get the information that the library has got some troubles now and nothing deeper is mentioned about what may lead to the problem and why it has declines and deteriorated so much compared with the past. What's more, the arguer again gives us his baseless idea that "we should now further economize and improve service." However, so many significant links have been missed, which are indispensable for drawing the conclusion.

Last but not the least, the two terrible fallacies as I listed above is a wholly mistaken analogy that makes the wrong conclusion finally. Assumably, if we concede that it's right the "two in one" plan that made the fewer users complaint about the garbage service, but it has definitely no necessary relation with the possibility that we can solve the library problem utilizing the same method again. As a matter of fact, it's our common sense that all the garbage may be driven to one place conveniently without disturbing the people's normal life but we can never ask the people of one village to go to another one to borrow books if they have needs for reading. This false analogy is both logically fallacious and what’s more, so ridiculous that even contradicts our common knowledge.

In sum, the whole argument is made of a huge but false analogy; furthermore, both the prerequisite and inference are built upon the lack of necessary information and details. The arguer must collect more relevant parameters to support his proof and conclusion, maybe he should look into both the two problems more carefully and thoroughly.

@amy@UID：209096

This argument is made of two major parts. One is the prerequisite that few complaints have been reported when [since] the two villages merge their garbage collection departments into one, therefore, the arguer suggests that they should do the same to save the library [save library有点别扭，换个说法吧] in Polluxton. [开头说two major parts，怎么只说一个方面？]

The arguer has given us a lot of information to prove its point but unfortunately his conclusion is based on some seriously [serious] logic mistakes.[我记得智恩也问过你为什么这里要单立一段啊？]

First of all, the prerequisite is so groundless that the arguer fails to prove its credibility. On the one hand, there is no specific cause about why there have been sharp declines in the number of residents who pay property taxes in the two villages. On the other hand, probably with no further survey of real causes, the project to merge the two separate garbage collection departments into a single one has been implemented. Thus, the arguer contributes the achievement that few complaints about the service to this project in hasty and groundlessly made [makes] a unnoticed but clear conclusion that it seems the "two in one" project is extremely powerful in solving all the problems.[这段论证的不太好，人口下降与这个项目有什么关系呢？没有深入调查就合并垃圾收集又怎么样？要说清楚]

Secondly, the arguer makes absolutely no remarks or provides us any necessary details about why the library in P had 20 percent fewer users than [应该加上the users吧] during the previous year.  We just get the information that the library has got some troubles now and nothing deeper is mentioned about what may lead to the problem and why it has declines and deteriorated so much compared with the past[这句不是和前一句说的一个意思吗？]. What's more, the arguer again gives us his baseless idea that "we should now further economize and improve service." However, so many significant links have been missed, which are indispensable for drawing the conclusion.[这段只说了why，没进一步论证啊]

Last but not the[the是不是不必要啊] least, the two terrible fallacies as I listed above is a wholly mistaken analogy that makes the wrong conclusion finally. Assumably, if we concede that it's right [of] the "two in one" plan that made the fewer users complaint about the garbage service, but [but可以去掉吧] it has definitely no necessary relation with the possibility that we can solve the library problem utilizing the same method again.[这句话说得有点别扭] As a matter of fact, it's our common sense that all the garbage may be driven [carried好点吧？] to one place conveniently without disturbing the people's normal life but we can never ask the people of one village to go to another one to borrow books if [觉得when好点] they have needs for reading. This false analogy is both[？] logically fallacious and what’s more, so ridiculous that even contradicts our common knowledge.

In sum, the whole argument is made [up] of a huge but false analogy; furthermore, both the prerequisite and inference are built upon the lack of necessary information and details. The arguer must collect more relevant parameters to support his proof and conclusion, maybe he should look into both the two problems [哪两个啊？加上discussed above好点吧？] more carefully and thoroughly.

dganggangUID：2125101

谢谢了
我仔细看了你的批改 小错误都改得挺好 我第一段的论证也确实有疏忽
至于为何要独立一段写观点 赫赫 why not？