A67 勇往直前小组第六次作业 bynashiong

xiongnashiongUID：2359406

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: 503          TIME: 上午 12:27:52          DATE: 2007-8-2

By the facts listed in the argument , the arguer claims that in order to further economize and improve service , they should close the library in Polluxton(short for P) and use the library in Castorville(short for C) to serve both villages. however , this deduction suffers from several fallacies .
First.the arguer claims that merging of two separated garbage collection departments into a single department located in C could be a measure which could save money and improve service . however , the arguer do not provide any proof that this combination serve these interests. on the contrary , because the only garbage collection department locates only in C now , it means trucks and staffs should be sent to P to collect garbage every day which would form a impulse to its traffic cost .moreover , people in P would find their garbage would not be moved away as soon as before which might contribute to a complain . although the arguer cites the fact that there are little complains after merging ,it is very possible that people are not familar with this new department ,and might be not know the approach to express their complain ,once they do , the arguer would find that this combination alimeorate neither serive nor saving money .
Secondly , the arguer asserts that a 20 percent decline of users in P's library is not bearable and need a improvment ,however , we may find that the decline just appeared for one year, in other words , it might be a normal fluctuation ,because people may concentrate on different things each year , once they focus on reading , there would be more readers ,and at that time , number of users would recover . in this situation , there is no need for change of P's library .
Finally, even people in P indeed become less than interesting in reading,and amount of readers would decrease as the times goes by . wether the exprience of garbage department could be applicable in library field is worth close considering . it is obvious that once the two libraries come to only one . people in P ,  if they want to read books ,will have to go to the library in C . for a book lover , it will be very painful to run back and forth every time he or she want to borrow a book ,and accordingly , this painful exprience would breed lots of complains about service . on the other side , whether this combination could save money or not  is doubable , library of C would have to expand its capacity to meet the need of more people and surely these improving project would cost a lot .
so from above analysis , we could see that  arguer could not promise people would be satisfied with  the new service supplied by either new garbage department   or library .if arguer want to make the deduction more convincing ,more evidences are needed.
限时 并且事先没有看 并且打了草稿考试的时候 一看 居然有500..............囧

linshaoUID：2338229

By the facts listed in the argument , the arguer claims that in order to further economize and improve service , they should close the library in Polluxton(short for P) and use the library in Castorville(short for C) to serve both villages. however , this deduction suffers from several fallacies .
First.the arguer claims that merging of two separated garbage collection departments into a single department located in C could be a measure which could save money and improve service . however , the arguer do not provide any proof that this combination serve these interests. on the contrary , because the only garbage collection department locates only in C now , it means trucks and staffs should be sent to P to collect garbage every day which would form a impulse to its traffic cost .moreover , people in P would find their garbage would not be moved away as soon as before which might contribute to a complain . although the arguer cites the fact that there are little complains after merging ,it is very possible that people are not familar with this new department ,and might be not know the approach to express their complain ,once they do , the arguer would find that this combination alimeorate neither serive nor saving money .

感觉化了太多笔墨在写垃圾收集的例子未必成功，其实它只是一个对比而已，不必如此着重分析。本文主要批驳图书馆合并的问题啊。
Secondly , the arguer asserts that a 20 percent decline of users in P's library is not bearable and need a improvment ,however , we may find that the decline just appeared for one year, in other words , it might be a normal fluctuation ,because people may concentrate on different things each year , once they focus on reading , there would be more readers ,and at that time , number of users would recover . in this situation , there is no need for change of P's library .这段的批驳点不是很好，应该放在为什么要关闭P的图书馆，而留下C的图书馆，P读者下降是作者提出的一个理由而已
Finally, even people in P indeed become less than interesting in reading,and amount of readers would decrease as the times goes by . wether the exprience of garbage department could be applicable in library field is worth close considering . it is obvious that once the two libraries come to only one . people in P ,  if they want to read books ,will have to go to the library in C . for a book lover , it will be very painful to run back and forth every time he or she want to borrow a book ,and accordingly , this painful exprience would breed lots of complains about service . on the other side , whether this combination could save money or not  is doubable , library of C would have to expand its capacity to meet the need of more people and surely these improving project would cost a lot .
so from above analysis , we could see that  arguer could not promise people would be satisfied with  the new service supplied by either new garbage department or library .if arguer want to make the deduction more convincing ,more evidences are needed.
nashing！太强了A限时也能写500字！
总的来述说已经写的很好了，比我强了很多啊！我A限时写不完的。