ARGUMENT67 0710G-＋U Aug 小组第五次作业

571633UID: 2333480

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: 429          TIME: 00:30:00          DATE: 2007-7-29 9:16:19

Citing few complaints about the garbage service after the separate two garbage collection departments merged in the villages of Castorville and Polluxton, the letter recommends the two villages should using the library in Castorville in order to save money and improve service. Nevertheless, close inspection of the facts reveals that none of them lend credible support to the recommendation.

First of all, the arguer commits a fallacy of false analogy. It is said in the letter that because the garbage collection department is used by the two villages with only few complaints, so as to save money and improve service the two villages ought to use one library to serve both villages. However, even though the only garbage collection department works well, there is no guarantee that by simply coping the policy of garbage collection department it will work just as well as for the library. The reason is that two situations are no similar enough to justify the analogical deduction. Thus the writer of the letter should do more investigation and research before the determination.

What's more, quite apart from the false analogy, the fact that using one garbage collection lends no strong support to the conclusion that the money could be saved. For example, because the garbage is located in Castorville, there is a necessity for the villagers in Polluxton to send the garbage to the Castorville by trucks. So the transportation fees should be counted. If the writer really wants to convince us, more information about the money ought to be provided.

Last but not least, granted the only one library will work efficient, however, the recommendation provides no evidence that why the library in the Castorville should be used rather than the library in the Polluxtion. So I do not ascribe it to perversity on my part, but rather to the slim information, which is deficient in the evidence that I could never quite reconcile myself to the lesson. Consequently lacking enough evidence the conclusion, to say least, is dubious.

Simply put, the letter's recommendation is not well supported because it relies on certain a series of doubtful assumptions that render it untenable as it stands. Before I can accept it, the writer must supply clearer evidence - perhaps by the way of a local survey or study - that the investigation will support the conclusion that only one library in the two villages is used can save money and improve service. To better evaluate the argument we would need more reasons about the library's location rather than simply tells us the library in Castorville should be used.


谢谢楼上的，楼上的费心了。

[ 本帖最后由 571633 于 2007-7-29 09:43 编辑 ]

xiefen0223UID: 2301911

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: 429 TIME: 00:30:00 DATE: 2007-7-29 9:16:19

Citing few complaints about the garbage service after the separate two garbage collection departments merged in the villages of Castorville and Polluxton, the letter recommends the two villages should using the library in Castorville in order to save money and improve service. Nevertheless, close inspection of the facts reveals that none of them lend credible support to the recommendation.（简短而抓住重点，good point～！）

First of all, the arguer commits a fallacy of false analogy. It is said in the letter that because the garbage collection department is used by the two villages with only few complaints, so as to save money and improve service the two villages ought to use one library to serve both villages. However, even though the only garbage collection department works well, there is no guarantee that by simply coping (copying) the policy of garbage collection department it will work just as well as for the library. The reason is that two situations are no (not) similar enough to justify the analogical deduction. Thus the writer of the letter should do more investigation and research before the determination.(说得挺不错的，不过最好举个细节问题，为什么说它们没法类比，以加强自己的反驳力度)

What's more, quite apart from the false analogy, the fact that using one garbage collection lends no strong support to the conclusion that the money could be saved. For example, because the garbage is located in Castorville, there is a necessity for the villagers in Polluxton to send the garbage to the Castorville by trucks. So the transportation fees should be counted. If the writer really wants to convince us, more information about the money ought to be provided.

Last but not least, granted the only one library will work efficient, however, the recommendation provides no evidence that why the library in the Castorville should be used rather than the library in the Polluxtion. So I do not ascribe it to perversity on my part, but rather to the slim information, which is deficient in the evidence that I could never quite reconcile myself to the lesson. Consequently lacking enough evidence the conclusion, to say least, is dubious. Simply put, the letter's recommendation is not well supported because it relies on certain a series of doubtful assumptions that render it untenable as it stands. Before I can accept it, the writer must supply clearer evidence - perhaps by the way of a local survey or study - that the investigation will support the conclusion that only one library in the two villages is used can save money and improve service. To better evaluate the argument we would need more reasons about the library's location rather than simply tells us the library in Castorville should be used.

呵呵，我感觉到现在这文章有5分的水平了，模板里的句式运用得很好，也抓住了反驳的重点。并且没犯什么错。 如果在用模板句式的时候能多联系本论点更细节地反驳，那就更完美了。继续加油～！！