argument67[jet]第八次作业

hds123523000UID: 2454889

Argument 67
The following appeared in a letter to the editor of a newspaper serving the villages of Castorville and Polluxton
"Both the villages of Castorille 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 seperate garbage collection departments into a single department located in Casatorville, 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."

time 18.38  word361
    Conclusion, from the author's argument, which is that we should close the library in Polluxton and use the one in Castorville only to save money and improve service, seems reasonable, but at the second glance, there are some flaws.
    First of all, there are some differences between library and garbage collection, which may make conclusion wrong. As everyone knows, a decline of population leads to a decline of user of garbage definitely, but library is another thing. There is a possibility that most rest of local residents in Casatorville like reading. Thus though the information that 20 percent fewer user in Polluxton is indicated, only one library can not satisfy both villages' demand. What's more, knowledge is power, of which lacking means poverty. So, though sharp declines in the numbers of residents, the user of library in whole two villages may not decline.
    Secondly, does one library means better service and less costs? The answer is vague. Just think about how unconvienient it is if there is only one library. Residents from the other village have to spent some time more that previous to get the library and borrow one or two book. Some residents, espcially student,who do not have to throw garbage everyday, but have to borrow books because study is a long process. So, the costs of time and money on individual have increased, through it seems to economize. So, it is possibly there will be more complaints.
    Thirdly, what we should think again about why we should close the one in Pollxuton but the one in Castorville. The only clue is that "last year the library in Polluxton had 20 percent fewer users than during the previous year". But no information about how is Castorville going is provided. We should collect enough evidence before decide which one to close and which to use. This will benefit the whole users' right.
    In sum, the argument is not eloquent and lack of evidence. To better evaluate this argument, the author should provide how many user of library in Castorville, and predicate how this year it will be. What's more, it would be better if there is a survey about this decision.              

benjamin07UID: 2310909

The conclusion, from the author's argument, which is that we should close the library in Polluxton and use the one in Castorville only to save money and improve service, seems reasonable, but at the second glance, there are some flaws.

First of all, there are some differences between library and garbage collection, which may make the  conclusion wrong. As everyone knows, a decline of population leads to a decline of user of garbage definitely, but library is another thing. There is a possibility that most of local residents in Casatorville like reading. Thus though the information that 20 percent fewer user in Polluxton is indicated, only one library can not satisfy both villages' demand. What's more, knowledge is power, lacking of which  means poverty. So, though sharp declines in the numbers of residents, the user of library in whole two villages may not decline.

Secondly, does one library mean better service and less costs? The answer is vague. Just think about how unconvienient it is if there is only one library. Residents from the other village have to spend some time more that previous to get to the library and borrow one or two books. Some residents, espcially students,who do not have to throw garbage everyday, but have to borrow books because study is a long process. So, the costs of time and money on individual have increased, through it seems to economize. So, it is possibly there will be more complaints.

Thirdly, what we should think again about why we should close the one in Pollxuton but the one in Castorville. The only clue is that "last year the library in Polluxton had 20 percent fewer users than during the previous year". But no information about how is Castorville going is provided. We should collect enough evidence before decide which one to close and which to use. This will benefit the whole users' right.

In sum, the argument is not eloquent and lack of evidence. To better evaluate this argument, the author should provide how many users of library in Castorville, and predicate how this year it will be. What's more, it would be better if there is a survey about this decision.