argument67 米国有米寒假小组8号作业

cckantUID: 2247822

TOPIC: 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."
WORDS: 408          TIME: 0:30:00          DATE: 2007-2-9

In this argument, it is argued that due to the decrease in numbers of residents who pay property taxes, the villages of Castorville and Polluxton should close the library serving in Polluxton and using the library in Castorville to serve both villages, as the number of users of Polluxton library dropped 20% last year, and the similar merged service in garbage collection received few complaints. However, there are several logical flaws invalidate this argument.

To begin with, the need for expenditure contraction is questionable while it is based merely upon the decrease of residents who pay property taxes. On one hand, it is possible that numbers of residents paying property taxes decreased, but the tax income did not. Perhaps property tax rate had increased so that it offsets the decline in number of tax payers. Or the other sources of tax had offset the decline in property tax paid. On the other hand, even if property taxes declined, it does not mean that expenditure is needed to be cut. Maybe the number of public service users drops correspondingly so that expenditure to provide these public services would decrease as well. Hence, the arguer has to provide other evidence to suggest that expenditure cutting plan is necessary.

Moreover, the outcome of the garbage collection emerge, as an example, is not clear. The argument states that the purpose to of merging the garbage service is to save money and improve service. However, no valid evidence is to substantiate that the outcome is actually as supposed. Money may not be saved, for example, because the cost of fueling the increased length of route the garbage collecting vehicles increase or disposure of the current facilities for garbage collection required an extraordinary amount of money that overshadows that money saved annually. Also the fact that the new department has reported few complaint does not necessarily indicates the improved or least unchanged quality of service. It is likely the new department is less known and hence much fewer people known the contact means to complain the service in the short period after the merge. Or maybe people tolerate the declined quality of service for their temporary understanding of the difficulty associated with the newly merged department.

Finally, the propagation of the experience from garbage collection to library service is ungrounded. Garbage collection and library service, though both public service, share little characteristics. For example, the location of facility matters to library service much more than the garbage collection, for garbage collection is a passively service whereas library is an active service that people actively look for. And garbage is a necessary service for a community so that the quality of service may not so important as long as there is service. But library is more a service promoting community cultural environment. Some people do no go to library ever, and some people consider convenience as a significant factor affecting their visits to the library.

In sum, the argument is not convincing unless more information about actual need of reducing expenditure, specific plan about feasibility and reasonable expected outcome are needed for a better policy suggestion.

holdingUID: 2285054

In this argument, it is argued that due to the decrease in numbers of residents who pay property taxes, the villages of Castorville and Polluxton should close the library serving in Polluxton and using the library in Castorville to serve both villages, as the number of users of Polluxton library dropped 20% last year, and the similar merged service in garbage collection received few complaints. However, there are several logical flaws invalidate this argument.

To begin with, the need for expenditure contraction is questionable while it is based merely upon the decrease of residents who pay property taxes. On one hand, it is possible that numbers of residents paying property taxes decreased, but the tax income did not. Perhaps property tax rate had increased so that it offsets the decline in number of tax payers. Or the other sources of tax had offset the decline in property tax paid. On the other hand, even if property taxes declined, it does not mean that expenditure is needed to be cut. Maybe the number of public service users drops correspondingly so that expenditure to provide these public services (this public service) would decrease as well. Hence, the arguer has to provide other evidence to suggest that expenditure cutting plan is necessary.

Moreover, the outcome of the garbage collection emerge, as an example, is not clear. The argument states that the purpose to of merging the garbage service is to save money and improve service. However, no valid evidence is to substantiate that the outcome is actually as supposed. Money may not be saved, for example, because the cost of fueling the increased length of route the garbage collecting vehicles increase or disposure of the current facilities for garbage collection required an extraordinary amount of money that overshadows that money saved annually. Also the fact that the new department has reported few complaint does not necessarily indicates the improved or least unchanged quality of service. It is likely the new department is less known and hence much fewer people known the contact means to complain the service in the short period after the merge. Or maybe people tolerate the declined quality of service for their temporary understanding of the difficulty associated with the newly merged department.

Finally, the propagation of the experience from garbage collection to library service is ungrounded. Garbage collection and library service, though both public service, share little characteristics. For example, the location of facility matters to library service much more than the garbage collection, for garbage collection is a passively service whereas library is an active service that people actively look for. And garbage is a necessary service for a community so that the quality of service may not so important as long as there is service. But library is more a service promoting community cultural environment. Some people do no go to library ever, and some people consider convenience as a significant factor affecting their visits to the library.

In sum, the argument is not convincing unless more information about actual need of reducing expenditure, specific plan about feasibility and reasonable expected outcome are needed for a better policy suggestion.
错误挑得全面，语言也非常好，好羡慕啊，写的真好。