Argument67 [Jet小组] 第八次作业

滴滴雨儿UID: 2392741

题目：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."
字数：340          用时：0:30:00          日期：2008-2-17

速度慢了..以至于没好多想展开的地方没时间写了..也不知道最后倒数第二段那样摆着会有多大影响..

On the purpose of saving money and improving service, the speaker suggested that closing the library in Polluxton and using the one in Castorville to serve both villages. However, I think it's hasty to draw this conclusion because of the following reasons.

First and foremost, the speaker failed to show any province that using the library in Castorville to serve both villages can save money. Unlike garbage collection departments, library provides quite a different service and runs in a different way.  If the library in Castorville locates in an area which is too far away for villagers in Polluxton, then the users may continually decline even after merging step. To make a better conclusion, we need more information about the reason that why the library in Polluxton has fewer users. If it is because of the bad weather, or some other events such as elections which absorbed most of the villagers' attention, then it will probably return to the previous user numbers next year.

Furthermore, the merge of their once separate garbage collection departments may not be that successful as it seems for the only reason that few complaints has been reported. Since it was recently merged, maybe it is not long enough for the villagers to judge the service. And the speaker doesn't tell us that whether this merging step saves money. If it doesn't, then it is even more doubtful that the merging of libraries can saves money.

Besides, it may not be that wise to merge the libraries as the garbage collection departments without asking the villagers' opinions. Still, we should do a survey about whether the villagers want to merge their libraries or not. After all, it is the villagers who use the library and to improve service is for their profits.

What's more, to save money, merging libraries may not be the only choice.
Improving service is quite the same case. More training about the librarians may do a better job.

In conclusion, the suggestion would be more convincing if the speaker provides more evidence.

michaelxuywUID: 2330197

On the purpose of saving money and improving service, the speakersuggested that closing the library in Polluxton and using the one inCastorville to serve both villages. However, I think it's hasty to drawthis conclusion because of the following reasons.(简洁)

First and foremost, the speaker failed to show any province that usingthe library in Castorville to serve both villages can save money.Unlike garbage collection departments, library provides quite adifferent service and runs in a different way.  If the library inCastorville locates in an area which is too far away for villagers inPolluxton, then the users may continually decline even after mergingstep. To make a better conclusion, we need more information about thereason that why the library in Polluxton has fewer users. If it isbecause of the bad weather, or some other events such as electionswhich absorbed most of the villagers' attention, then it will probablyreturn to the previous user numbers next year.（我觉得save money指的是政府通过合并来节省开支，而不是居民省钱:confused:，所以我的文章里只驳了”服务质量不一定提高“）

Furthermore, the merge of their once separate garbage collectiondepartments may not be that successful as it seems for the only reasonthat few complaints has been reported. Since it was recently merged,maybe it is not long enough for the villagers to judge the service.（好理由） Andthe speaker doesn't tell us that whether this merging step saves money.If it doesn't, then it is even more doubtful that the merging oflibraries can saves money.

Besides, it may not be that wise to merge the libraries as the garbagecollection departments without asking the villagers' opinions. Still,we should do a survey about whether the villagers want to merge theirlibraries or not. After all, it is the villagers who use the libraryand to improve service is for their profits.

What's more, to save money, merging libraries may not be the only choice.
Improving service is quite the same case. More training about the librarians may do a better job.

In conclusion, the suggestion would be more convincing if the speaker provides more evidence.

首先楼主认为省钱的主体是居民，但从材料中提到的”近期纳税人数量的减少“可以推断出省钱的主体应该是政府。其次，文章似乎没有攻击”合并是否能提高服务的质量“，我觉得这应该是分析的重点，因为其中推理的逻辑错误比较多。不过因为是限时，还是要赞一下:)，欢迎互改:handshake