第一次ScoreItNow同主题

qisaimanUID：2703629

The arguer claims that even if the Scott woods is purchased and becomes a school site, it can still benefit the community as a natural parkland and provides the children with an athletic fields. The argument seems plausible, yet it is flawed with several fallacies.

As a common sense, when one refers to a natural parkland, one actually means that the place preserves its natural states and anyone can travel to there at any time. Nevertheless, once a school was built there, it became a public site with definite purpose, which means one cannot visit it as he or she wishes except one can provide proper reason, since due to the safety consideration, school will only allow those who have appropriate reason to enter the place.

In addition, the argument fails to show that it is urgent to build a school. Consequently, it is open to doubt that the town planning committee's plan of building a school there cannot guarantee it will not be used as a site for other purpose, such as shopping center or houses, which obviously violate the initial hope of the community.

Even if a new school is necessary, the community should place careful consideration on the cost of destroying the parkland, which means many trees need to be cut down and therefore damages the local ecosystem. Meanwhile, when the Scott woods stay natural, it can be an even better place for children to participate in sports. Compared with other athletic fields, a natural parkland obviously benefits the children more in delivering fresh air and friendly environment. Thus, the community should reconsider the claims.

In the final, the argument fails to show it is necessary to build a new school, and why the site should be placed on the parkland other than anywhere else. To improve the argument, more information is needed to support the claims.

谢谢楼主的评价。