argument67 [0710G +U小组] --xiefen0223--第5次作业

xiefen0223UID: 2301911

字数：458          用时：0:50:00          日期：2007-07-29

In this argument, the arguer suggests, to save money and improve service, the library in Polluxton should be closed while the library in Castorville take the role of serving both villages. To support his recommendation, the arguer demonstrates that the new garbage collection department, which was merged from the two separate departments both in Castorville and Polluxtion, has reported few complaints, besides that, he provides the information that the library in Polluxton had 20 percent fewer users. But we can see how groundless the recommendation is after careful examination.
First of all, the arguer takes it for granted that the merge of the two libraries can save money and improve service. But in this letter he has not provided any detailed data to support his standpoints. In fact, the residents need to spend more time and money on the traffic to the library, which might be above the spending on the management expense. Moreover, people in Polluxton may not go to the library for its inconvenience, which will probably results that the income of membership fees will be reduced. So it will not save the money neither for its government nor the residents in Castorville.
Secondly, the arguer believes that the garbage collection's merge is successful because it gets few complaints, so he thinks the merge policy can be conducted to the library case too.  But as we know, getting few complaints does not mean that it has improved the service, maybe the people in both cities understand the economic problem of the government and accept the recent services accordingly. Even if this merge policy is fine, the garbage collection business is not comparable with the library case, since in the garbage collection, it is the company come to the house to get the garbage, which has not brought much trouble to the residents, but when the library in Polluxtion is moved into that in Castorville, it would disappoint people by the inconvenience of reading or borrowing books.
Last but not least, the fact that last year the library in Polluxton had 20 percent fewer users than during the previous year can not lead to the conclusion that the library here should be merged into that in Castorville. It is possible that even the number of the users in Polluxton library has reduced 20 percent; it is still more than that in Castorville. How can the library be in Castorville rather than in Polluxton? The arguer fails to give any information on this point.
Simply put, the argument is full of fallacies as it stands. To make it reasonable, the arguer should show more evidence how the merge of library will improve service and save money, and why it should be moved into the Castorville rather than Polluxtion.

ldsunUID: 2329026

In this argument, the arguer suggests, to save money and improve service, the library in Polluxton should be closed while the library in Castorville take the role of serving both villages. [这一句话结构挺特殊，我确实不是很肯定是否合理哦]To support his recommendation, the arguer demonstrates that the new garbage collection department, which was merged from the two separate departments both in Castorville and Polluxtion, has reported few complaints, besides that, he provides the information that the library in Polluxton had 20 percent fewer users. But [ 还是觉得用however更好些]we can see how groundless the recommendation is after careful examination.

First of all, the arguer takes it for granted that the merge of the two libraries can save money and improve service. But in this letter he has not provided any detailed data to support his standpoints[stantpoint]. In fact, the residents need to spend more time and money on the traffic to the library, which might be above the spending[也可以用expenditure] on the management expense.[这里residents多花钱不能说明library会给市局省下吧,可能你认为合并会给both residents and villages省下钱吧，这样想我觉得有点牵强] Moreover, people in Polluxton may not go to the library for its inconvenience, which will probably results that the income of membership fees will be reduced.[这一点是说不会赚钱吧，可不是省钱了，呵呵] So it will not save the money neither for its government nor the residents in Castorville.

Secondly, the arguer believes that the garbage collection's merge is successful because it gets few complaints, so he thinks the merge policy can be conducted to the library case[这个case用得很好啊，还有前面的conduct] too.  But as we know, getting few complaints does not mean that it has improved the service, maybe the people in both cities understand the economic problem of the government and accept the recent services accordingly. Even if this merge policy is fine, the garbage collection business is not comparable[这个词也很好，我就想不到] with the library case, since in the garbage collection, it is the company [that comes?]come to the house to get the garbage, which has not brought much trouble to the residents, but when the library in Polluxtion is moved into that in Castorville, it would disappoint people by the inconvenience of reading or borrowing books.[这一段说得很清楚，值得学习]

Last but not least, the fact that last year the library in Polluxton had 20 percent fewer users than during the previous year can not lead to the conclusion that the library here should be merged into that in Castorville. It is possible that even the number of the users in Polluxton library has reduced 20 percent; it is still more than that in Castorville. How can the library be in Castorville rather than in Polluxton[这一句需发改进下,觉得用be不太恰当]? The arguer fails to give any information on this point.[这一段很标准，没有什么问题]

Simply put, the argument is full of fallacies as it stands. To make it reasonable, the arguer should show more evidence how the merge of library will improve service and save money, and why it should be moved into the Castorville rather than Polluxtion.[结尾简单，但清楚有力]

这篇写得很好了，说是第二段那个问题你再考虑下哈。考试时能在规定时间里写成这样就很厉害了吧，呵呵。

[ 本帖最后由 ldsun 于 2007-7-30 18:29 编辑 ]