argument67 勇往直前13th作业bynbta03

nbta03UID：2326371

67 - 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: 403          TIME: 00:30:00          DATE: 2007-8-1 10:59:51

In the argument, the arguer recommends that they should  further economize and improve service by closing the library in Polluxtion and using the library in Castorville to serve both villages. At first glance, the argument seems to be appealing , while a careful examination would reveals that it suffers from several logical fallacies.

Firstly, the arguer falsely assumes that the new garbage collection department in Castorville performs better than two previous separated ones only by the few complaints about its service. But the arguer provides no evidence to show that the citizens in Castorville really appreciate their service. It is likely that only a small portion of citizens are satisfied with the service, while a lot are extremely not or have not express their dissatisfaction. Thus, unless more evidence about the service in Castorville are provided, then it is misleading to draw any conclusion from it.

Secondly, the arguer makes a false analogy. Granted that the garbage service is better than before since a combined new on settles in Castorville, which is, of course ,an unwarranted assumption, it does not follow that closing the library in Polluxton and using the library in Castorville will draw more users. Garbage collection and library are so totally different two services that they are not comparable. At the same time, the situation of two places may be in a great difference. It is likely that Castorville has even fewer people who like to go the library and then it is improper to make such an analogy.

Last but not least, the assumption that the action towards the library will further economize and improve service is unconvincing. We are told nothing that such a result will occur without any doubt. Profits and service are affected by many factors, such as cost, general economic environment, incomes of citizen and so on. Maybe the use of library in Castorville will gain less  money that cannot offset the increased cost, let alone to further economize. The arguer would have to take these possibilities into account to make the conclusion convincing.

In sum, the argument lacks credibility because the evidence cited do not lend strong support to what the arguer claims. To strengthen the argument , the arguer would have to provide more evidence about the garbage service in Castorville. Additionally, the arguer must rule out all other possibilities that would affect the profits and service to make the conclusion logically acceptable.

[ 本帖最后由 nbta03 于 2007-8-1 11:16 编辑 ]

PudingUID：2364107

In the argument, the arguer recommends that they should  further economize and improve service by closing the library in Polluxtion and using the library in Castorville to serve both villages. At first glance, the argument seems to be appealing , while a careful examination would reveals that it suffers from several logical fallacies.

Firstly, the arguer falsely assumes that the new garbage collection department in Castorville performs better than two previous separated ones only by the few complaints about its service. But the arguer provides no evidence to show that the citizens in Castorville really appreciate their service. It is likely that only a small portion of citizens are satisfied with the service, while a lot are extremely not or have not express their dissatisfaction. （这个可能性好吗？原文已经提到了没有人提出反对了，这样不是在质疑事实吗？觉得应该写成攻击他不能赚钱及提供更好的服务会比较好）Thus, unless more evidence about the service in Castorville are provided, then it is misleading to draw any conclusion from it.

Secondly, the arguer makes a false analogy. Granted that the garbage service is better than before since a combined new on settles in Castorville, which is, of course, an unwarranted assumption, it does not follow that closing the library in Polluxton and using the library in Castorville will draw more users. Garbage collection and library are so totally different two services that they are not comparable. At the same time, the situation of two places may be in a great difference. （还要展开，比如说倒垃圾人不用走得很远，但是看书就得走到另一个村子）It is likely that Castorville has even fewer people who like to go the library and then it is improper to make such an analogy.

Last but not least, the assumption that the action towards the library will further economize and improve service is unconvincing. We are told nothing that such a result will occur without any doubt. Profits and service are affected by many factors, such as cost, general economic environment, incomes of citizen and so on. Maybe the use of library in Castorville will gain less  money that cannot offset the increased cost, let alone to further economize. The arguer would have to take these possibilities into account to make the conclusion convincing.

In sum, the argument lacks credibility because the evidence cited do not lend strong support to what the arguer claims. To strengthen the argument , the arguer would have to provide more evidence about the garbage service in Castorville. Additionally, the arguer must rule out all other possibilities that would affect the profits and service to make the conclusion logically acceptable

最好再提一下图书馆的不使用趋势不会下降。