argument67 泡面队~

bishao422UID: 204362

Argument67
428 words

------题目------
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.'



------正文------
In this letter, the author concludes 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. To support it, the author points out that to save money and improve service, the two villages recently merged their once separate garbage collection departments into a single department located in Castorville. He also cites that the new department has reported few complaints about its service. Careful scrutiny of the letter reveals that the letter relies on several unproven assumption, and is therefore unpersuasive to some extent.

To begin with, whether the report is not creditable is open to doubt. Even if it is true, there is few complains about its service of this new department can't mean that there is no complain, maybe there was no people want to feedback any information to complain it even though the service was worse than before. So the author's conclusion, the new single department improve service than before, which relies on this report is unwarranted.

Secondly, even if the report is accurate and representative all the residents' opinions, the author assumes too hastily that the new garbage collection department can save money and improve services . But this need not be the case, the author ignores that perhaps merged two separate garbage collection departments into a single department didn't save any money because that building the new department was a great project which costs a lot of money. Without ruling out such possibilities, the author can't convince me to believe this assumption.

In addition, even assuming that the new garbage collection department really save money and improve services, the author also unfairly infers that we will further economize and improve service if we close the library in Polluxton and use the library in Castorville to serve both villages, as we did with garbage collection. The author overlooks the differences between library and garbage collection department, as an example, the trush collection department can service the citizens by visiting their houses no matter in Polluxton or in Castorville, but it is very inconvenient that the citizen in Polluxton should walk a long distance to Castorville if they want to read books in library. The authors' claim that we close the library in Polluxton and use the library in Castorville to serve both villages to improve service is dubious.

To sum up, the author’s letter is logically unsound. To strengthen it, the author should provide more evidence, such as the report represents all the residents' opinions and the new garbage collection department really saves a lot of money and provides a better service, which can further bolster the letter.