argument67【Triple Week】第1次练习by完美飞行家

完美飞行家UID: 2622083

In this argument, the arguer concludes that in order to be more economical and improve service, the two villages of Castoriville and Polluxton should decide to close the library in Polluxton and use the library in Castoriville to serve both villages. In order to support the argument, the arguer points out that the two villages recently merged their once separate garbage collection departments into a single department locate in Castoriville and the new department has reported few complaints about its service. In addition, the arguer cites that the library in Polluxton had 20 percent fewer users than during the previous year. A careful examination would reveal how groundless the conclusion is.8 l3 k7 K2 @- t  a( R, X. D0 B' }
- r4 C5 w7 `, v; @
To begin with, the arguer fails to provide enough evidence that the new garbage department became more economical and gave better service. The mere fact that the new department has reported few complaints about service could not lead strong support to the conclusion. It is entirely possible that the new department has been founded only one month and many people even had not have enough time to pour out their complaints to this new department. It is equally possible that the new department cost much more than the former. Unless the arguer shows enough evidence of the advantage of the new department could we arrive at the same conclusion as the arguer's.( t/ g, i5 A8 ]0 i0 G, }
$ Z: j+ \5 a+ b
What's more, the arguer fails to establish a certain relationship between the department of garbage and the library. These two departments are totally different and even do not have any similarities. Perhaps people are indifferent about where the garbage department locates while they are very concerned about where the library is. If the library in Polluxton really closed, it is totally possible that people in the village of polluxton will be very angry about it and often complaint about the library is too far while people in the village of Castorville will still complaint that it is too many people in their library everyday. Until the arguer could explore any relationship between the two departments could we accept the conclusion.
$ P" V! X/ n3 E& h, j+ N, R/ Z/ d5 d) f9 X
Furthermore, the arguer fails to take into account other possibilities to be more economical and improve service. Perhaps to cut the number of workers of these two libraries is another good idea. Perhaps ask their clerks to be more polite to customs may greatly contribute to decrease the complaints. Without consider these and other possibilities, the arguer is too hasty to reach the conclusion.( j* H% P. G+ d$ s

; q8 T! @7 A5 @In sum, the conclusion lacks credibility because the evidence cited in the analysis does not lead strong support to what the arguer maintains. To make the conclusion more convincing, the arguer needs to consider more evidence and show more information about these two departments to sustain the conclusion.

newletter2002UID: 2653136

In this argument, the arguer concludes that in order to be more economical and improve service, the two villages of Castoriville and Polluxton should decide to close the library in Polluxton and use the library in Castoriville to serve both villages. In order to support the argument, the arguer points out that the two villages recently merged their once separate garbage collection departments into a single department locate in Castoriville and the new department has reported few complaints about its service. In addition, the arguer cites that the library in Polluxton had 20 percent fewer users than during the previous year. A careful examination would reveal how groundless the conclusion is.
To begin with, the arguer fails to provide enough evidence that the new garbage department became more economical and gave better service. The mere fact that the new department has reported few complaints about service could not lead strong support to the conclusion. It is entirely possible that the new department has been founded only one month and many people even had not have enough time to pour out their complaints to this new department. It is equally possible that the new department cost much more than the former. Unless the arguer shows enough evidence of the advantage of the new department could we arrive at the same conclusion as the arguer's.
What's more, the arguer fails to establish a certain relationship between the department of garbage and the library. These two departments are totally different and even do not have any similarities.（这句话的意思前后有点重复，或者说有点逻辑不通顺） Perhaps people are indifferent about where the garbage department locates while they are very concerned about where the library is. If the library in Polluxton really closed, it is totally（鉴于前面totally用过了，可以找一个意思相近的代替，如wholly,entirely） possible that people in the village of polluxton will be very angry about it and often complaint about the library is too far while people in the village of Castorville will still complaint that it is too many people in their library everyday. Until the arguer could explore any relationship between the two departments could we accept the conclusion.（这个倒装句用的很漂亮，给人眼前一亮的感觉）
Furthermore, the arguer fails to take into account other possibilities to be more economical and improve service. Perhaps to cut the number of workers of these two libraries is another good idea. Perhaps ask their clerks to be more polite to customs may greatly contribute to decrease the complaints. Without consider these and other possibilities, the arguer is too hasty to reach the conclusion.

In sum, the conclusion lacks credibility because the evidence cited in the analysis does not lead strong support to what the arguer maintains.（这句话个人觉得是个万用句，可以适当改变，以便不时之需） To make the conclusion more convincing, the arguer needs to consider more evidence and show more information about these two departments to sustain the conclusion.
这篇文章从结构上讲，我觉得是一篇很典型的ARGU结构文章。总述，然后分论，总结。在文章主体的部分，作者攻击了文章中明显的逻辑错误，运用孤立的数据来说明问题，把某些方面的成功经验借鉴到其他地方就一定能成功的谬论。最后一段主体段写到如何来解决两个政府遇到的问题，我觉得可以写更多的细节来支持我们的论据。
从语言的丰富性上讲，作者还是避免了某些动词和副词的重复使用，体现语言的多样性。但是，还是不免有那么一些重复的地方。文章中也不缺乏一些很好的句子，比如那句倒装句我就很喜欢。