Argument67【Triple Week】第1次练习by 泡面

泡面UID: 2513568

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."

In this text, we can see that as the property taxes has been rapidly decreased, in order to save money and improve service, the two villages recently merged their once seperate garbage collection departments into one single department located in Castorvile. And consider the other fact about library, the arguer assums the same project of mergeing the two libraries into one located in C. It seems plausible in the first glance. However it cannot stand further examination.

First of all, the merge deosn't mean the decrease of fee and promotiong of service. As the garbage collection department in Castorville, first, it may not large enough to contain the amonut of two village's garbage, and then ,garbage from the other village also need to be transformed
for a longer distance than before, the process of transportation need fees as well. And also the new department has reported few comlaints maybe owe to lack of report. And we may further suppose that their is none complaints at all when there are respective garbage collection departments in two villages. So it cannot represent a high quality life either.

And also the arguer has wrongly compared the two programs. Garbage collection is a life service, while library is some kind of spirit. The decrease of numbers of people in P maybe that by accident, people in P are busy for their working that year and don't have enough time to go to the library, and it is just an contemporary phenomenan, which can not denote the later station as the same. So the phenomenan cannot lead to the result of cancelling the library in P right now; and the arguer also fail to prove that people in Care are eager to library; so that merging the library and locate it in C is not a totally good idea. People in P may suffer from travlling distance to borrow books, does it mean an improvement in service? It seems that maybe coalition does save money but doesn't mean it is well improve the service.

In conclusion,
the auguer’s evidence lends little credible support to his statement. The arguer first failed to prove that coalition indeed decrease the money and promote the service, on the other hand, the arguer has wrongly making compare between the garbage collection department and the library to come to the conclsion that closing the library in P to preserve the library in C can save money and serve the both. In order to take the appropriate action, the auguer need further investigation and more acurate data in advance.