argument67【jet】小组第八次作业

O--honeyUID: 2452493

字数：590   时间：08.2.18
In this argument, the arguer seems to be very satisfied by his proposal of closing the library in Polluxton and using the library in Castorville to serve both villages in order to further economize and improve service, the reason is just because the example of the garbage collection merging plan that merged their once separate garbage collection department into a single department located in Castorville. But a serious consideration of the problems would reveal how groundless the argument is.

Firstly, the arguer mentioned that in order to further economize and improve service, we should follow the garbage collection plan as to the library, however, the funny thing is that in this whole argument, the arguer did not say the grade of the merging garbage collection plan, what’s more, only the sentence “and the department has reported a few complains about its services” is enough to reveal how failure the plan is, let alone whether it earn more money or not. So, based on such an uncertain reason, the arguer unexpectedly made a conclusion that the library should do the same thing in order to economize and improve services which is totally ridiculous. As to our common sense, the services or the economical benefits of a library is not depend on its numbers but the scale of the library and both the quality and quantity of the books it presents. In this case, rather than spend money to collapse one library to rebuild another one, spend the money to buy some good books is a great idea and proposal!

Secondly, even we accept that the economic interests of the merging garbage collection department plan is fairly good, that’s not to say that we can still compare the garbage collection department’s situation to the situation of the library. What if the merging of the garbage collection department reduce the range of the place while the spare place can be used to build more useful infrostructions to serve their people, say, a free parking lot which allows more people to park their cars for free, then they can use their money to consume more things to stimulate the development of economy for both villages or a beautiful park which attract more residents, more residents means more property taxes that can be used to improve the services. But the library condition is a totally another thing, merging two libraries into one may shrink the place, the that also means the shrinking of numbers of books or the quality of books, and I am afraid the later one can bring more losses than the former one, what’s more, maybe the fewer users trend is just caused by the fewer residents there! Unless the arguer can rule out this possibility, he can not make such a hasty conclusion.

Thirdly, I’ve noticed that the arguer still wanted to locate the proposal library in Castorville the same as the garbage collection department, but I want to ask one more question：even Castorville have a very suited environment or conditions to include one garbage collection department to serve two villages at the same time, but that not mean it is the same to the library. Maybe the library is very suited to be built in Polluxton.

In sum, in this argument, the arguer failed to rise up a proposal according to the reality which I should explain it as drawing a dipper with a gourd as a model. Unless the arguer offer us some specific details to support his standpoint, the proposal he raised is totally unreasonable