[a习作temp] argument163 高频,互拍.. [复制链接]

monkeydry
UID：183691

初级会员

Rank: 3 Rank: 3

声望: 0
寄托币: 286
注册时间: 2004-10-26
精华: 0
帖子: 0

电梯直达

楼主

发表于 2005-8-4 16:58:47 |只看该作者 |倒序浏览

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.'
-------------------------------------------------------
Based upon unwarranted assumptions and evidences, the arguer suggested it is supposed to replace the old hall by a new one in order to save money. However, this conclusion is hasty and unreasonable.
First of all, the smaller size of current hall is not the reliable reason for tear down it, with the willing of saving money. It is quite possible that just because of the smaller size and simple equipment the government is able to meet the expense to its ends. Perhaps 10 thousand dollars’ tax income can just now maintain those daily expenses in this simple situation. In contrary, enlarging the size and renewing the equipment, such as those expensive modern machines, will probably improve the cost and destroy the fund balance, which causes the government lack of money to deal with some other civil engineering. In short, replacing the hall will not save money obviously and perhaps increase cost.
At the second place, there are no statistic evidences and study show that the cost of old hall in winter and summer is high. The author just draws this conclusion without any detailed number, diagram or other reliable proofs. What is more, the arguer makes a false assumption that the new, larger building would be more energy efficient. However there is no sufficient information to show this opinion. Contrarily, it is probably that per square foot to heat and cool will be much higher than before, because the lager building needs more energy to meet more people's need. In addition, some new equipments which perhaps does not exist in the old hall, just like computers, air-conditions, instead of typewrites and fanners, would cost more electricity, which leads the energy' cost more enormously.
Last but not least, the possibility of renting out some space to generate income has not a clear future. No plans and numbers show that the total space in the new building will surpass the whole need, which is an important premise to rent rooms. Again, according to the basal principle in civil engineering, it is a forbidden space for the planner to make government building to contain some other organization, because it influence efficiency and destroy reputation of government. If there are not any empty rooms for renting, where could be the planned income generated?
Consequently, it seems logical for the inhabitants to consider building a new hall since it is natural for them to pursue an energy-efficient and economical building. However, before any final decisions are made, the citizens and policy makers should evaluate all the possible alternatives and reasons concerning with the topic. Only considering other possible factors, just like new building cost, the improved rate of energy use, the possibility of empty space and so on, it would be more possible for them to arrive at their ultimate aims.