Argument67【Triple Week】第1次练习by danielgao

danielgaoUID: 2604134

In this argument the author attempts to convince us that we should further econimize and improve the services in villages of Catroville and Polluxton, by closing the library in Polluxton and using the library in Castroville to serve both villages. The author's recommendation is based on the report that few people complain about the garbage collection service after the two villages merged their once separated ones, and the users of the Polluxton library's decrease 20 percent in the last year. Although the author's claim might appear to have considerable merit at first blush, we would find how groundless it is after a careful examination.

First of all, few number complains about the newly merged garbage collection department does not necessarily indicates that the residents are satisfy with it. Since the author provides no information about the report, it is entirely possible that the reporters are mainly come from Castorville, thus have a low rate of dissatisfaction.  What’s more, the reliability of the report is open to doubt due to the fact that the result was reported by the new department themselves. They might distort the actual number of complaint in order to avoid being punishment.

In addition, the function and market of garbage collection department and library are not compatible. Therefore even the newly merged garbage collection department can supply satisfying service, it does not mean the combination of two villages library can lead to the same result.  For example, people do not need to bring their dairy rubbish to the collection department by themselves, while they must go to the library to pick and lend their favorite book, and this might means a distant journey for the residents of Polluxton. This might means a distant journey for the residents of Polluxton, and lead to their dissatisfaction.

The third problem with this argument is that the author provides no evidence to prove that the merging of two libraries could improve service as well as reduce cost. Since the merging would obviously cause a lot of inconvenience for the Polluxton residents, its contribution for the service improving is doubtful. And the cost of merging two libraries should be taken into account either.

To sum up, the argument is not persuasive as it stands because the evidence cited in the analysis does not lend strong support to what the arguer maintains. To strengthen the argument, the author should provide more evidence to prove his recommendation and afford more information about the cost of carrying out his proposal.

八零年代的蛋UID: 2660305

In this argument the author attempts to convince us that we should further econimize and improve the services in villages of Catroville and Polluxton, by closing the library in Polluxton and using the library in Castroville to serve both villages. The author's recommendation is based on the report that few people complain about the garbage collection service after the two villages merged their once separated ones, and the users of the Polluxton library's decrease ( decrease) 20 percent in the last year. Although the author's claim might appear to have considerable merit at first blush( blush?查了下儿没有glance的意思吧，个人以为glance在此处比较合适), we would find how groundless it is after a careful examination (examination:
试验, 测验, 考试,此处用analysis是不是更为合适？).

First of all, few number(删去此词) complains about the newly merged garbage collection department does not necessarily indicates that the residents are satisfy with it. Since the author provides no information about the report, it is entirely possible that the reporters are mainly come from Castorville, thus have a low rate of dissatisfaction.  What’s more, the reliability of the report is open to doubt due to the fact that the result was reported by the new department themselves. They might distort the actual number of complaint in order to avoid being punishment.（调查类错误对调查者的质疑）

In addition, the function and market of garbage collection department and library are not compatible. Therefore even the newly merged garbage collection department can supply satisfying service, it does not mean the combination of two villages library can lead to the same result.  For example, people do not need to bring their dairy rubbish to the collection department by themselves, while they must go to the library to pick and lend their favorite book, and this might means a distant journey for the residents of Polluxton, and lead to their dissatisfaction.(觉得这段的一个小问题就是表达方式，作者一句话以 ……, while…. , and….. ,and….. 关联词偏多，一句话占了一段儿的2/3，可以改下儿表达方式)

The third problem with this argument is that the author provides no evidence to prove that the merging of two libraries could improve service as well as reduce cost. Since the merging would obviously cause a lot of inconvenience for the Polluxton residents, its contribution for (contribution to) the service improving is doubtful. And the cost of merging two libraries should be taken into account either.

To sum up, the argument is not persuasive as it stands because the evidence cited in the analysis does not lend strong support to what the arguer maintains. To strengthen the argument, the author should provide more evidence to prove his recommendation and afford more information about the cost of carrying out his proposal

开头以In this argument开头个人以为有些不够丰富，可以改变下儿说法，让文章开头稍微丰富下儿，不是千篇一律的感觉。本文体现了作者比较好的逻辑性，一点个人建议就是作者可以尝试下儿让步攻击模式，这样会使得整片的逻辑性更强。作者模板也准备非常简洁实用，套话部分不会占去过多篇幅。


以上是本人的第一次帮被人改的Argu，如有不妥的地方，见谅见谅~

danielgaoUID: 2604134

2# 八零年代的蛋

多谢你的认真点评!