Argument67

红药UID: 2120027

The arguer attempt to persuade us that the library in the two villages, namely Castorville(C) and Polluxton(P), should be merged as they did with garbage collection.  However close scrutiny on the dubious evidence and groundless assumption reveals that the argument suffers from several critical fallacies.

First of all, depended on the insufficient evidence that few complaints were received, the arguer claimed that they have achieved their goal to improve the service and save money by merging the garbage collection departments into a single one. There is unnecessarily correlation between the number of complaints and the satisfaction of the service.  Since, it's entirely possible that lots of people are unsatisfied with the recently service, yet only a few complain about it. So we can't confidently draw the conclusion that the service is improved based on such unsounded evidence. As lacking evidence of the expense of the garbage collection department has declined, it's unreasonable to assert that the merging can save money. As the there only one collection department, the cost of transport of the garbage may increased.  Thus the assertion that the merging of the collection department has done its work is highly suspicious.
Further more, the auger made a hasty conclusion that the library in P should be closed, as there are 20% users than previous year. With out leaving out the totally number of the user of the library in P, we can not assert that only few people are using the library. If the totally number of the users is large, 80% of the users is still a remarkable amount that should not be ignored. So there’s no reason that the users should be deprived of the right of using the library. And the arguer overlook other factors, for example, the data of one year time should not be sufficient to draw the conclusion. Though this year less people went to the library, it will not be the case the nest year. Thus, we can not simply indicate that we should close the library in P based on the vague data of only one year.
   Finally, even though the arguer can proved that the merging of the garbage collection departments is fully successful, and the library in P is rarely be visited, the analogy drawn between the garbage collection department and the library is highly suspicious. The auger failed in providing no evidence that there are enough similarities between them to justify any analogical deduction. There are many fundamental distinctions between them that have been overlooked. For instance, the garbage collection is only to get the garbage away, where they are collected makes few differences for the residents, without considering the charge or the time. However, if the library in P is closed, the residents in P have to go to C to get their books, it’s obviously inconvenient for the ones who like to enjoy themselves in the library. Inasmuch as the books of the library in P are different form the books of library in C, it cannot ensure that the library in C can take fully place of the library in P. No sign of better service is available here. In short, it’s maybe reasoning to merge the garbage collection department, but the evidences are insufficient to persuade us that the library in P should be closed in order to improve the service and save money.                  
   To sum up, the augment is not well reasoned. To bolster it the arguer should provide more evidence that the garbage merger is truly successful, and the library in P should be closed. We will suspend our judgment on the conclusion unless further evidence is given.

staralwaysUID: 193479

总的说来不错。