[a习作temp] argument163 高频，互拍 [复制链接]

ardorous
UID??2115432

初级会员

Rank: 3 Rank: 3

声望: 0
寄托币: 622
注册时间: 2005-7-10
精华: 0
帖子: 1

电梯直达

楼主

发表于 2005-7-27 01:14:47 |只看该作者 |倒序浏览

163
------摘要------
作者：寄托家园作文版普通用户共用时间：26分27秒 466 words
从2005年6月26日11时13分到2005年6月26日11时26分
------题目------
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.'
------正文------
Proving with the groundless assumption that a charging new building will bring about a considerable amount of money, in addition , it is surely more big and effective. The arguer recommend to charge the old building with a new one. However, this argument suffers a lot of flaws.

At the first place, the arguer fails to persuade us the new building will brings more money. Compared to the old one, the arguer assumes building a new one people will be willing to afford for a new house, thus bring money. While this assumption is open to doubt, as it is known to all, constructing a new one will be costly, the material, the new implement , the salary for the workers and the primary engineer, the charge for tearing down the old one. All these may bring about countless spending. Supposing the people living in the old building are not rich enough to pay the new one, the result will be that most of the room of the new one may be left without residents. Moreover, no careful research had been done to show if we charge the condition of the old one, which , hardly cost much , there may be a great improving both in the condition of people living or the effectiveness. If we rearrange the approaches people living, if we transform the old implement for cooling or warming. There may be a better result compared to build a new building.

Secondly, does build a new one instead of an old surely really lead to bigger space and more effective? No building has been done yet , we cannot assume it will definitely bigger and effective, as the new one is built on the same land of the old, unless the stairs of it can improve, the room may not increase largely. However , if the building if too high, the pressure for sending the water may be a problem should be considered, and flowing from also less effective. Moreover, if more people live in the new one, no leading result that the room for every family will increase.

Thirdly, based on unwarranted assumption that there may be some more place left for generating income for the town of Rockinghave, this argument presumptuously rules out the people are willing to live there. There is a hint made by the arguer, more room will be given to the people outside of the Rockingham. Does these guys are willing to spend large number of money living in another place, called Rochingham or even is there enough place for future assimilating money.

Last but not least, the old building may be something has historical meaning, every year piles of people from outside the town come here to see it, thus bringing many extra money. Moreover, to destroy something historical, may damage the culture and precious treasure of the city, thus disagreement may come from the local people.
In sum , we should consider more both on the profit it may bring about and other reason , for instance, the culture preservation. After a careful consideration, we may decide to build a new one or not.

[ Last edited by staralways on 2005-7-27 at 13:28 ]