argument67 [0710G ＋U Aug小组]第5次作业 ldsun

ldsunUID: 2329026

In the letter the author recommends that library in Polluxton should be closed and the library in Castorville should be only used for the two villages in order to economize and improve service. Based on the fact that the numbers of residents who pay property taxes are decreasing greatly, the two villages took measures to incorporate their separate garbage collection departments into a single department located in Castorville, which is complained by few people, and herein lies that recommendation. However, with my reflection I find the argument have logically flaws in its deduction.

First of all, the fact that numbers of residents are reducing is not taken into account properly and the author ignores the rationality that incorporating the two garbage collection departments into one. We are not informed any information about the reason why there are fewer and fewer residents. It is entirely possible that two garbage collection departments seems somewhat not enough for the two villages is one of the reason. Under this circumstance, it is obvious that department-incorporating is an inappropriate solution to save money and improve service, and so the recommendation which is based on this comparison.

Secondly, critics may argue that maybe there are some other reasons why the numbers of residents are reducing while incorporating is a positive way to benefit the two villages. I would further raise a question that is this action truly accepted by the residents. The author states that the department has reported few complaints, so the action is feasible. However, it is equally possible that it has intensified that situation and more residents chose to leave instead of making complaints. In my opinion, with the only information that few complaints are reported I cannot be convinced that the incorporating is appropriate.

Even if merging their two garbage collection departments into one actually works well, the author unfairly applies it to the situation of the library. It is true that a library differs a lot with a garbage collection department such as a library is place for residents reading and borrowing books while the latter one is in charge of disposing their garbage. Without ruling out the possible influence induced by those differences, the author cannot assume the library can work well in the same way.

In sum, the argument flaws in several aspects as my discussion showed above. To make it more persuasive, the author needs to prove that incorporating is rational and carry out a survey or something to show that the residents are willing to incorporate the two library into one.

ldsunUID: 2329026

辛苦啦，:)

icefirekkUID: 2293126

In the letter the authorrecommends that library in Polluxton should be closed and the libraryin Castorville should be only used(不通，象是library只服务于两villages，应该是说两villages用一个library,表达成only the library in Castorville serve the two villages) for the two villages in order toeconomize and improve service. Based on the fact that the numbers ofresidents who pay property taxes are decreasing greatly, the twovillages took measures to incorporate their separate garbage collectiondepartments into a single department located in Castorville, which iscomplained by few people, and herein lies that recommendation. However,with my reflection I find the argument have logically flaws in itsdeduction.

First of all, the and fewer residents.It is entirely possible that two garbage collection departments sfact thatnumbers of residents are reducing is not taken into account properlyand the author ignores the rationality that incorporating the twogarbage collection departments into one. We are not informed anyinformation about the reason why there are fewer eems（？）somewhat not enough for the two villages is one of the reason. Underthis circumstance, it is obvious that department-incorporating is aninappropriate solution to save money and improve service, and so(is) therecommendation which is based on this comparison.

Secondly, critics may arguethat maybe there are some other reasons why the numbers of residentsare reducing while incorporating is a positive way to benefit the twovillages. I would further raise a question that is this action trulyaccepted by the residents. The author states that the department hasreported few complaints, so the action is feasible. However, it isequally possible that it has intensified that situation and moreresidents chose to leave instead of making complaints. In my opinion,with the only information that few complaints are reported I cannot beconvinced that the incorporating is appropriate.(似乎有点偏，residents declining是事实，arguer想要说的是如何减少开支，即economize，complaints少与merge of the two departments recently 有关，因为recently，所以暂时少，或者没有complaints没有统计进去）

Even if merging their twogarbage collection departments into one actually works well, the authorunfairly applies it to the situation of the library. It is true that alibrary differs a lot with（with改from） a garbage collection department such as alibrary is place for residents reading and borrowing books while thelatter one is in charge of disposing their garbage. Without ruling outthe possible influence induced by those differences, the author cannotassume the library can work well in the same way.
（许多更重要的攻击点咋不写了？字数是够了。提下：一个图书馆的容纳能力，便利程度，另一个图书馆关闭引起的麻烦。。。）
In sum, the argument flawsin several aspects as my discussion showed above. To make it morepersuasive, the author needs to prove that incorporating is rationaland carry out a survey or something（evaluation） to show that the residents arewilling to incorporate the two library into one.
不错，攻击是挺全的。个人意见：开头可从简，攻击部分多些就更完善了。