Argument163 限时失败...虎头蛇尾之作...

Chloroplast923UID: 207486

Argument163:421words   30 minutes
The following is taken from the editorial section of the local newspaper in Rockingham.
'In order to save a considerable amount of money, Rockingham's century-old town hall should be torn down and replaced by the larger and more energy-efficient building that some citizens have proposed. The old town hall is too small to comfortably accommodate the number of people who are employed by the town. In addition, it is very costly to heat the old hall in winter and cool it in summer. The new, larger building would be more energy efficient, costing less per square foot to heat and cool than the old hall. Furthermore, it would be possible to rent out some of the space in the new building, thereby generating income for the town of Rockingham.'
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In the argument above, the arguer suggests that in order to save a considerable amount of money, Rockingham's century-old town hall should be torn down and replaced by the larger and more energy-efficient building as proposed by some citizens. The argument is well presented, but not well reasoned. After some careful considering, it is easy to find out some flaws this argument suffers in logic.

   To begin with, the arguer points out that the old town hall is too small to comfortably accommodate the number of people who are employed by the town as one of his or her reasons to torn down the old town hall. However, this reason is equivocal in several aspects. Firstly, the arguer does not give out the definite criteria of "comfortably". It is very possible that the hall can accommodate all the people employed by the town while is a bit crowd which is endurable. Secondly, the arguer does not tell whether it is necessary and frequent to get all the people employed by the town together in the hall. If people employed by the town rarely all go to the hall, the capability of the hall may be enough.

    Moreover, the arguer points out that it is very costly to heat the old hall in winter and cold it in summer, while the new building cost less to do this. But the arguer does not apply any exact data, which can well support his or her viewpoint. Possibly the new building, which the arguer thinks that is energy-efficient, costs only a litter less to be heated in winter and colded in summer than the old town hall do. In this case, for the purpose to save a considerable amount of money, it is better to keep the old town hall than to torn down it and build a new one, because it will spend very much to build a new building.

Additionally, the arguer suggests rent out some of the space in the new building, thereby generating the income for the town of Rockingham. It is one of the advantages of a new building when the old town hall does not do in this way, however, there is no any evidence shows that the old town hall do not rent out any of its space.

To sum up, before making a final decision, the arguer should provide more relevant data and evidence to convince the audiences; otherwise it will be too rough and hasty.

[ Last edited by staralways on 2005-8-3 at 14:35 ]

monkeydryUID: 183691

今天也写了这片,觉得里面错误很多,反而搞的我无从下手...