argument67 kito组 智恩的第十五次作业

智恩UID: 2160717

67.The following appeared in a letter to the editor of a newspaper serving
the villages of Castorville and Polluxton. （2005年2-9月总频24次）
"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：
1 纳税人数下降并不代表纳税总额的减少
2 没有证据说明垃圾场合并了开支减少了
3 投诉少不代表服务质量令人满意，也许有些人即使不满意也没去投诉（也许是时间不长问题还未暴露出来；或是管理部门没有报告）
4 去年减少20％并不代表今年和以后都有减少的趋势（也许P村减少了20％还是比C村的人多）
5  关闭P的library并不能提高service 错误类比，图书馆的功能与垃圾场是不能比的，职能不同，面临的问题也不同
正文：
In this argument the author concludes that in order to further economize and improve service it is necessary to close the library in Polluxton and using the library in Castorville to serve both villages. To support this recommendation, the author points out that the recent successful combination of these two villages' garbage collection departments into a single department. Close scrutiny of this argument however reveals that it is logically flawed in a number of respects.

To begin with, the author unfairly assumes that the two villages' sharp declines in the number of residents who pay property taxes are the symbol of the total amount of property taxes. It is entirely possible that even if the number of residents of paying property taxes is declining, the amount of tax fees are not decreasing or even increase because of the increasing tax fees of average residents. Without considering and ruling out this possibility, it is unfairly to assume the sharp declines of property tax fees.

In addition, no evidence is offered to substantiate that the money declines after the combination of these two garbage collection departments. The author merely assumes that two separate garbage collection departments merged into a single one must save money spent on trash collection. Perhaps the building of the new garbage collection cost a large amount of money. Lacking such evidence, the author's evidence that the combination of the two trash collection is effective in saving money is incredible.

Besides, the author unjustifiable assumes that few complaints reported are the indication that residents are satisfactory with the new department. There is an entire possibility that the problems have not exposed due to the short periods. Or perhaps the administration department has not reported the complaints from the residents. Moreover it is highly possible that even if some people do not satisfy the new service, they are unwilling to report. Any of these scenarios, if true, would serve to undermine the author's claims that few complains are reported about the new department.

What is more, the decline of library using last year does not represent the trend of this year and the following years in library using. It is just as likely that the library in Polluxton has increased users recently. Even if assuming that the trend of the decline of library users is true, perhaps the population of Polluxton in library using after the 20% decline is still more than the number of library users of Castorville. If this is the case, closing the Polluxton's library is incorrect.

Finally the author fails to provide evidence to demonstrate closing the Polluxton's library could contribute to economize and improve service. The author commits a false analogy between the trash collection department and the library without considering the important function of library. Library is the collection of books and other informational materials available for residents to read, study or reference. If closing the library in Polluxton, it might be inconvenient for residents to look up information. Therefore different functions and different possible problems could not merely resolve in the same approach absent of consideration in the foregoing possibilities.

In summary, the evidence the author provided lends little support to the author's conclusion. To strengthen it, the author should further provide the condition of using of these two libraries and the feasibility of the combination of the libraries. To better evaluate it, we need to know the information that whether the combination of new department is effective and the proposal of the new library according to the characteristics.

谢谢拍砖！   

[ 本帖最后由 智恩 于 2006-1-17 00:26 编辑 ]

bunnymz2005UID: 2146758

In this argument the author concludes that in order to further economize and improve service it is necessary to close the library in Polluxton and using the library in Castorville to serve both villages. To support this recommendation, the author points out that the recent successful combination of these two villages' garbage collection departments into a single department. Close scrutiny of this argument however reveals that it is logically flawed in a number of respects.

To begin with, the author unfairly assumes that the two villages' sharp declines in the number of residents who pay property taxes are the symbol of the total amount of property taxes（这句话有个问题，你的意思是村子中缴付财产税的居民人数的下降是财产税总额下降的表征，可是你symbol后面显然没有下降这个词， 我觉得是不是加上更通顺一些呢？）. It is entirely possible that even if the number of residents of paying property taxes is declining, the amount of tax fees are not decreasing or even increase because of the increasing tax fees of average residents. Without considering and ruling out this possibility, it is unfairly to assume the sharp declines of property tax fees.

In addition, no evidence is offered to substantiate that the money declines after the combination of these two garbage collection departments. The author merely assumes that two separate garbage collection departments merged into a single one must save money spent on trash collection. Perhaps the building of the new garbage collection cost a large amount of money. Lacking such evidence, the author's evidence that the combination of the two trash collection is effective in saving money is incredible.

Besides, the author unjustifiable assumes that few complaints reported are the indication that residents are satisfactory （应该是satisfied，你所使用的这个satisfactory主要是adequate的意思）with the new department. There is an entire possibility that the problems have not exposed due to the short periods. Or perhaps the administration department has not reported the complaints from the residents. Moreover it is highly possible that even if some people do not satisfy the new service, they are unwilling to report. Any of these scenarios, if true, would serve to undermine the author's claims that few complains are reported about the new department.
What is more, the decline of library using last year does not represent the trend of this year and the following years in library using. It is just as likely that the library in Polluxton has increased users recently. Even if assuming（even assuming就好了） that the trend of the decline of library users is true, perhaps the population of Polluxton in library using after the 20% decline is still more than the number of library users of Castorville. If this is the case, closing the Polluxton's library is incorrect.

Finally the author fails to provide evidence to demonstrate closing the Polluxton's library could contribute to economize and improve service. The author commits a false analogy between the trash collection department and the library without considering the important function of library. Library is the collection of books and other informational materials available for residents to read, study or reference. If closing the library in Polluxton, it might be inconvenient for residents to look up information. Therefore different functions and different possible problems could not merely resolve in the same approach absent of consideration in the foregoing possibilities.

In summary, the evidence the author provided lends little support to the author's conclusion. To strengthen it, the author should further provide the condition of using of these two libraries and the feasibility of the combination of the libraries. To better evaluate it, we need to know the information that whether the combination of new department is effective and the proposal of the new library according to the characteristics.

写得很好，很有条理。但是我个人觉得没有必要写这么多问题，挑几个分析透彻就可以了.还有我觉得你开头结尾太模版化了，大家都这么写，应该适当改进一下（个人意见，仅供参考，呵呵^-^）

我还有个问题想请教：这篇Argu一开头就说纳财产税的居民减少了，这跟后边有什么联系？ 我怎么都觉得这句话跟后边不连着啊！

jingjingtousUID: 2164820

我觉得小花的分析很有道理，首先，交纳地产税的人减少我觉得只是argument给出的一个背景，跟下面的论证没有任何关系的，第二，我觉得你的开头和结尾太模板化了，我看了yogurt的链接贴很受启发，觉得我们应该早些摆脱模板的束缚！加油呀！

智恩UID: 2160717

看来得，好好想想要如何才能形成自己的模板了！