Passage or principleOriginal argumentative passage
A city committee proposes reducing the opening hours of neighbourhood libraries because the number of printed books borrowed has fallen by 18 percent in five years. According to the committee, lower borrowing proves that residents need libraries less than before. The money saved would be used to expand a central online portal. The conclusion is premature. Printed borrowing measures only one part of library use. Many residents visit libraries to use computers, complete online forms, attend language classes, consult reference material, or study in a quiet space. If these activities have increased, a decline in printed loans may reflect a change in use rather than a decline in need. The proposed alternative also assumes that online access is equally available to everyone. Yet the residents most dependent on neighbourhood libraries may lack reliable devices, private study space, or stable internet connections. An improved portal could benefit many users, but it cannot provide a desk, a trained staff member, or a safe public room. The portal and the buildings may be complements rather than substitutes. This does not establish that every branch must retain its present schedule. Some hours may attract very few visitors, and local patterns should guide staffing. The committee should therefore collect hourly footfall, computer use, programme attendance, and user surveys before deciding. A limited trial at branches with consistently low use would produce better evidence than a citywide reduction based on one indicator. Public services should adapt when habits change. Adaptation, however, begins by identifying the service people actually receive. Counting only the objects that leave a building can make the people who remain inside it disappear from the analysis.