argument67 [Jet小组]第八次作业

x6xUID: 2180130

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:466 TIME:30min DATE:18/02/2008

The author of the letter asserts  to close the library in Polluxton and use the library in Castorville to serve both villages. At first glance, this opinion seems to be somewhat convincing, but further reflection tells me that I cannot agree with it for the following reasons.

Fisrtly, garbage collection and library, the two compared in the argument, is two distinct services and has distinct market, so the comparison is in nature unpersuasive. As there are tatally different climates on the North Earth with the South Earth, different services seldom share the same market rule. The reason why the emerged department located in Castorville met few complaints about its service may be that the former department in Castorville offer rather good services. However, suppose that the library in Castorville is as bad as that in Polluxton or even worse, the emerged one will still be free from improvement.

Secondly, last year's decline of users in P does not necessarily mean a successive decline in the following years. Accordingly, the declines in the potency of the residents to pay property taxes have the probability to rebound or even surpass the original level. Rules in the past cannot always securately predict things in the future. To illustrate, with more than 10 pecent GDP incresing rates, Japan's economy is very well in 1980s; however, in 1990s, it met one crisis after another. If internation investors throw all their money to the market of Japan according to the past statistical data in the year 1980, they may bankrupt at last.  

Thirdly, considering the shutdown cost of the P library, the aim of economizing and improving service is not promising in the long run. Facing decisions, opportunity cost should always be considered. Since the effect of the emerged library in the future is not certain, how can we safely concluded that it will save cost? Maybe the tatal cost of two libraries nowadays is even less than that of the single emerged one.  

Besides, after the shutdown, the readers' diverting from PL to CL is doubtable due to the distance of the two villiages, and the market may be taken up by bookstores. Problems caused by distance should always be thought, citizens in PL may give up enjoying survices in CL because of long distance. The berrer survices the author emphasized will be of least use to people in CL.

In sum, the author's claim is not convincing as it stands. To make it logically acceptable, he/she would have to show stronger evidence in proving that the market rules of gabbage collection in the past will adapt to the library market in the future. Additionally, the president must consider the shutdown cost of the P library. Only with more convincing evidence could this argument become more than just an emotional appeal.   

mix99UID: 2432326

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:466 TIME:30min DATE:18/02/2008

The author of the letter asserts  to close the library in Polluxton and use the library in Castorville to serve both villages. At first glance, this opinion seems to be somewhat convincing, but further reflection tells me that I cannot agree with it for the following reasons. (建议复述一下论据

Fisrtly, garbage collection and library, the two things compared in the argument, is two distinct services and has distinct market, so the comparison is in nature unpersuasive. As there are tatally different climates on the North Earth with the South Earth, different services seldom share the same market rule.(是不是有点不合适?) The reason why the emerged department located in Castorville met few complaints about its service may be that the former department in Castorville offer rather good services. However, suppose that the library in Castorville is as bad as that in Polluxton or even worse, the emerged one will still be free from improvement.

Secondly, last year's decline(应该没有这个用法) of users in P (不合适)does not necessarily mean a successive decline in the following years. Accordingly, the declines in the potency of the residents to pay property taxes have the probability to rebound or even surpass the original level. Rules in the past cannot always securately predict things in the future. To illustrate, with more than 10 pecent GDP incresing rates, Japan's economy is very well in 1980s; however, in 1990s, it met one crisis after another. If internation investors throw all their money to the market of Japan according to the past statistical data in the year 1980, they may bankrupt at last.(是不是应该紧购题目?仅是个人意见,我也拿不准.)

Thirdly, considering the shutdown cost of the P library, the aim of economizing and improving service is not promising in the long run. Facing decisions, opportunity cost should always be considered. Since the effect of the emerged library in the future is not certain, how can we safely concluded that it will save cost? Maybe the tatal cost of two libraries nowadays is even less than that of the single emerged one.

Besides, after the shutdown, the readers' diverting from PL to CL is doubtable due to the distance of the two villiages, and the market may be taken up by bookstores. Problems caused by distance should always be thought, citizens in PL may give up enjoying survices in CL because of long distance. The berrer survices the author emphasized will be of least use to people in CL.

In sum, the author's claim is not convincing as it stands. To make it logically acceptable, he/she would have to show stronger evidence in proving that the market rules of gabbage collection in the past will adapt to the library market in the future. Additionally, the president must consider the shutdown cost of the P library. Only with more convincing evidence could this argument become more than just an emotional appeal.   
建议不要用缩写,觉得有点不正规.攻击论点应该清晰一点.建议不要限定时间

[ 本帖最后由 mix99 于 2008-2-19 23:52 编辑 ]