argument67...fantasy group...必回拍。。。

foreveraUID：202035

TOPIC：ARGUMENT 67 - 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."
WORDS：464          TIME：上午 12:32:45          DATE：2005-9-6

In the argument, providing the former so-called successful case in Castorville and Polluxton of sharing garbage collection department, the author asserts that the government of the two villages should close the library in Polluxton and use the one in Castorville together. His claim seems to be reasonable at the first glance, but in-depth scrutiny of his evidence reveals that his hastiness seriously undermines the credibility of the argument and his logic suffers from several fallacies as follows.

Primarily, whether the case of sharing garbage collection departments of the two villages does successfully serve the residents well is still open to doubt. As the author only mentions that there are few complaints reported about the changing service, I have enough reason to doubt that most complaints of the public about the service are not reported or might be concealed by the directors of the departments. It is entirely possible that the shrinking service is not able to meet the people's need, and accordingly seriously disturb the living quality of the public. Therefore, even though the combination of garbage of the two villages can reduce the cost of the government, it might not be reasonable to compensate the profit of the public.

What's more, to state that Polluxton had 20 percent fewer users than the previous year is convincingly support the author's connotation that the library in Polluxton was not better utilized. Perhaps, there have always been a great amount of people waiting to enter the library in Polluxton for its high quantity and quality of book storage. And even with the 20 percent of decline of users, there is seldom any free sit or space in the library. To this extent, hastily close the library would result in publicly complaints of inconvenient access to reading.

In addition, even grant that the shrinking service can meet the present need of the people and really receive few complaints, the false analogy between garbage collection departments and libraries might make the argument unconvincing. As the author fails to provide any comparative between the two kinds of distinct departments, it is quite possible that the garbage trucks are able to travel between the two villages, while people have inconvenient traffic means to go to the other village to read books. Or perhaps, the managements of the two kinds of departments are greatly different from each other. Under this circumstance, mechanical copy of the success of garbage collection's success would not receive similar and profitable result.

To sum up, the argument is far from convincing as based on some groundless evidence. To better strengthen the argument, the author should add some detailed information about :(1)the real attitude about the combination of garbage collection department;(2)the utilizing situation of the library in Polluxton;(3)the feasibility of the garbage collection' success in library changing.

weiweizhuUID：179352

In the argument, providing the former so-called successful case in Castorville and Polluxton of sharing garbage collection department,(provding引导的应该是一个从句吧，你这句没有谓语也） the author asserts that the government of the two villages should close the library in Polluxton and use the one in Castorville together. His claim seems to be reasonable at the first glance, but in-depth scrutiny of his evidence reveals that his hastiness seriously undermines the credibility of the argument and his logic suffers from several fallacies as follows.（模板不错，好像换新的了）

Primarily, whether the case of sharing garbage collection departments of the two villages does successfully serve the residents well is still open to doubt. As the author only mentions that there are few complaints reported about the changing service, I have enough reason to doubt that most complaints of the public about the service are not reported or might be concealed by the directors of the departments. It is entirely possible that the shrinking service is not able to meet the people's need, and accordingly seriously disturb the living quality of the public. Therefore, even though the combination of garbage of the two villages can reduce the cost of the government, it might not be reasonable to compensate the profit of the public.（第一个错误说没报道有抱怨并不代表服务好）

What's more, to state that Polluxton had 20 percent fewer users than the previous year is convincingly support（supporting） the author's connotation that the library in Polluxton was not better utilized.（？？？？？？？什么意思，这不是赞同文章的观点吗） Perhaps, there have always been a great amount of people waiting to enter the library in Polluxton for its high quantity and quality of book storage. And even with the 20 percent of decline of users, there is seldom any free sit or space in the library. （这个有点牵强啊）To this extent, hastily close the library would result in publicly complaints of inconvenient access to reading.（第二个错说P的读者不一定减少）

In addition, even grant（granted） that the shrinking service can meet the present need of the people and really receive few complaints, the false analogy between garbage collection departments and libraries might make the argument unconvincing. As the author fails to provide any comparative between the two kinds of distinct departments, it is quite possible that the garbage trucks are able to travel between the two villages, while people have inconvenient traffic means to go to the other village to read books. Or perhaps, the managements of the two kinds of departments are greatly different from each other. Under this circumstance, mechanical copy of the success of garbage collection's success would not receive similar and profitable result.（这段错误类比列举的他因挺有道理的，我当时写到这就傻了，根本不知道怎么展开。。。嗯。。。要好好借鉴）（第三个错误写的是错误类比）

To sum up, the argument is far from convincing （闪光举行闪闪发光）as based on some groundless evidence. To better strengthen the argument, the author should add some detailed information about 1)the real attitude about the combination of garbage collection department;(2)the utilizing situation of the library in Polluxton;(3)the feasibility of the garbage collection' success in library changing.

如果单把提纲列出来的话
似乎一和二关系不是很明显
但是按文章错误的顺序这么排还是可以理解的