argument67 [0710G ＋U Aug小组]第五次作业

wm23UID: 2245087

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."



The argument concludes two villages of Castorville and Polluxton will reduce more expenditure by closing Polluxton library and using Castorville library. To support his conclusion, the author indicates that these two villages merged their once separated garbage collection departments into a single one, and there are only few complaints about this method. In addition, the author asserts combining two libraries together will be more economical and better for service. However, the author commits several fallacies, which renders it unconvincing.

Firstly, the report that the new garbage collection department was complained by few people is unreliable.. The author only points out there are few people complainting about new department's service. However, the word "few" is too vague. We do not know how many people dissatisfy the new department, and what percent are these people of the whole villagers. Even though we assume that most of people satisfy the service; however, if those complaints are very serious and point out some certain defects that are really existed, thus, it cannot be overlooked, and the author should revaluate the method of the library problem.

Secondly, the author makes a false analogy in solving library problem. Even though we suppose that the strategy of combining two garbage collection departments is a wise idea, the author cannot consider the method is still fit for library. After all, there are too many differences between the library and the garbage collection department. The people who live in Polluxton can throw their garbage in trash bin, and the garbage will be carried away by garbage collection department. In contrast, if a student who lives in Polluxton, and he wants to borrow several books, it will be very troublesome while the library is closed in Polluxton, because there are no librarian being willing to carry the books to him\her.

Thirdly, no proof indicates the service of the library will be improved by closing the polluxton library and only using castorville library. The author considers the library service will be improved by using Castorville library, whereas, we must ask such a question: Does the author make a right prediction? To imagine, a library can only accommodate the readers of one village, and now it have to afford two times readers more than it can contain. How can it provide a better service through inadequate seats and insufficient books?

In sum, the argument is unacceptable as it stands. To strengthen the argument, the author has to demonstrate that the method of combining two garbage collection departments is really effective, and it has some similarities with library problem. To better evaluate the argument, the author must provide some new viable method about solving the library problem.

warlockUID: 2364623

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."


The argument concludes two villages of Castorville and Polluxton will reduce more expenditure by closing Polluxton library and using Castorville library. To support his conclusion, the author indicates that these two villages merged their once separated garbage collection departments into a single one, and there are only few complaints about this method. In addition, the author asserts combining two libraries together will be more economical and better for service. However, the author commits several fallacies, which[url=] renders[/url][zj1] it unconvincing.

Firstly, the report that the new garbage collection department was complained by few people is unreliable. The author only points out there are few people complainting about new department's service. However, the word "few" is too vague. We do not know how many people dissatisfy the new department, and what percent are these people of the whole villagers. Even though we assume that most of people satisfy the service[url=]; however,[/url][zj2] if those complaints are very serious and point out some certain defects that[url=] are [/url][zj3] really existed, thus, it cannot be overlooked, and the author should revaluate the method of the library problem.
指出这个survey的一些疑点

Secondly, the author makes a false analogy in solving library problem. Even though we suppose that the strategy of combining two garbage collection departments is a wise idea, the author cannot consider the method is still fit for library. After all, there are too many differences between the library and the garbage collection department. The people who live in Polluxton can throw their garbage in trash bin, and the garbage will be carried away by garbage collection department. In contrast, if a student who lives in Polluxton, and he wants to borrow several books, it will be very troublesome while the library is closed in Polluxton, because there are no librarian [url=]being[/url][zj4] willing to carry the books to him\her.
其实可以用交通费增加是读者进一步减少来说明合并未必可行。

Thirdly, no proof indicates the service of the library will be improved by closing the polluxton library and only using castorville library. The author considers the library service will be improved by using Castorville library, whereas, we must ask such a question: Does the author make a right prediction? To imagine, a library can only accommodate the readers of one village, and now it have to afford two times readers more than it can contain. How can it provide a better service [url=]through[/url][zj5] inadequate seats and insufficient books?
可以考虑一下从人这个角度来说明服务的问题。

In sum, the argument is unacceptable as it stands. To strengthen the argument, the author has to demonstrate that the method of combining two garbage collection departments is really effective, and it has some similarities with library problem. To better evaluate the argument, the author must provide some new viable method about solving the library problem.

表达得已经很流利了，再接再厉！思路也很清楚，共计的点到位了。加油！
[zj1]Render


[zj2]不用了，因为前面有even though


[zj3]不需要了，exist就行，而且exist用一般现在时


[zj4]不用being


[zj5]用with感觉比较好