aquument67 我的第一篇，好像是太长了，呵呵，欢迎互拍

ahqiuUID：207682

Argument 67
——题目——
The following appeared in a letter to the edotor of a newspaper serving the village of Castorville and Polluxton.
“Both the village of Castorville and Polluxtton 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 department has reported few complaints about its service. Last year the library in Plluxton 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.
——正文——
In this argument the author recommends that by closing the library in Polluxton and using the library Castorvile to serve both villages can economize and improve service. To support his view, the author cites the an example of the garbage collection between the two villages. While it seems plausible, we will find that the author commits several fallacies when further analyzing his assertion.

Firstly, the author fail to prove that by merging their garbage collection department into a single one located in Castorville will save money and improve service. On one hand, there is no evidence to show us that the cost of one garbage department is less than those two in the past. perhaps the cost was equal with the total of the two or maybe the cost rise because the fees of transporting garbage from Polluxiton to Castorvile is much higher than dealing with them at local place. On the other hand, although the author raised a piece of information that complaints about the service are less than before, there are other possibilities, Perhaps, the department has been set up for a short time, so the problem may have not been exposed. Another possible reason is that these complaints did not reach the department, although people have complained for a long time. If the author does not rule out these possibilities, we have no reason to believe that this measurement will save money and improve service

Secondly, the author made a fallacious comparison between the garbage collection and the library. After all, the library and garbage collection department play different roles in people's life, and the management of the two are totally distinctive. Also the problems they should deal with are different, for example, people may complain that the books in the library are too old and the kinds are too small, whereas, the complaints about the garbage collection tend to be the times of collection seems to be few in a week. Therefore, the comparison between garbage collection and library is unpersuasive and we can not conclude that by taking the same measurement on library may have the same effect, even if the merged garbage department can save money and improve the service.

Thirdly, the fact that the library in Polluxon had 20 fewer users last year than the previous year does not automatically lead to prove the conclusion that we should close library in Polluxton, even if the same measurement is suitable to library. The reason why the number of uses in Polluxton declined is not discussed, so one may wander whether the number will rise in the future. And the situation in Castorvile is also not discussed. Perhaps, the number of the users in Castorville increased or there were always multitudes of people in the library there. In this sense, we can not deduce from the mere fact that the library in Polluxton should be closed.

To sum up, we can see the recommends was undermined by its insufficient sample, false analogy and inadequate interpretation of same facts. In better evaluating this matter, the author should prove that the two kinds of department are indeed comparable. To make the argument forceful, the author should go to provide solid evidence that the merged garbage collection really save money, and the reason why the number of the users of library in Polluxton decreased. Furthermore, the author should make a survey on the containing of the library in Castorvile, to prove it can meet the desire of the uses from two villages simultaneously.

[ Last edited by ahqiu on 2005-7-22 at 10:43 ]

yuchenUID：2111079

In this argument the author recommends that by closing the library in Polluxton and using the library [in]Castorvile to serve both villages can economize and improve service. [有by doing sth can的说法吗？把by去掉会好些吧]To support his view, the author cites the an[去the or an] example of the garbage collection between the two villages.没懂 While it seems plausible, we will find that the author commits several fallacies when further analyzing his assertion.

Firstly, the author fail [fails]to prove that by merging their garbage collection department into a single one located in Castorville will save money and improve service. On one hand, there is no evidence to show us that the cost of one garbage department is less than those two in the past. perhaps the cost was equal with the total of the two or maybe the cost rise because the fees of transporting garbage from Polluxiton to Castorvile is much higher than dealing with them at local place. On the other hand, although the author raised a piece of information that complaints about the service are less than before, there are other possibilities, Perhaps, the department has been set up for a short time, so the problem may have not been exposed. Another possible reason is that these complaints did not reach the department, although people have complained for a long time. If the author does not rule out these possibilities, we have no reason to believe that this measurement will save money and improve service
分别就价钱和服务进行反驳，不错，只是中间有几个句子太长，读起来好像不是很流畅。

Secondly, the author made a fallacious comparison between the garbage collection and the library. After all, the library and garbage collection department play different roles in people's life, and the management of the two are totally distinctive. Also the problems they should deal with [they指什么？]are different, for example, people may complain that the books in the library are too old and the kinds are too small, whereas, the complaints about the garbage collection tend to be the times of collection seems to be few in a week. Therefore, the comparison between garbage collection and library is unpersuasive and we can not conclude that by taking the same measurement on library may have the same effect, even if the merged garbage department can save money and improve the service.

Thirdly, the fact that the library in Polluxon had 20 fewer users last year than the previous year does not automatically lead to prove the conclusion that we should close library in Polluxton, even if the same measurement is suitable to library. The reason why the number of uses in Polluxton declined is not discussed, so one may wander[wonder] whether the number will rise in the future. And the situation in Castorvile is also not discussed. Perhaps, the number of the users in Castorville increased or there were always multitudes of people in the library there. In this sense, we can not deduce from the mere fact that the library in Polluxton should be closed.

To sum up, we can see the recommends[recommend] was undermined by its insufficient sample, false analogy and inadequate interpretation of same facts. In better evaluating this matter, the author should prove that the two kinds of department are indeed comparable. To make the argument forceful, the author should go to provide solid evidence that the merged garbage collection really save money, and the reason why the number of the users of library in Polluxton decreased. Furthermore, the author should make a survey on the containing of the library in Castorvile, to prove it can meet the desire of the uses from two villages simultaneously.
总结：论证的结构挺不错的，层层深入。个人觉得开始应该说一说居民减少病不一定是钱少或服务不好，好像这是作者所有推论的最前提吧！
感谢ahqiu昨天对我的issue的修改，收获颇丰！
我的argument欢迎来拍！
http://edu.gter.net/bbs/viewthre ... type%26typeid%3D102