[a习作temp] Argument163 请大家随便拍，谢谢. 请留下链接，方便回拍 [复制链接]

Archer1123
UID??206148

中级会员

Rank: 4

声望: 0
寄托币: 1719
注册时间: 2005-4-18
精华: 1
帖子: 1

电梯直达

楼主

发表于 2005-12-21 21:40:23 |只看该作者 |倒序浏览

ＡＲＧＵＭＥＮＴ
163The 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."
1. 无数据支持拆掉旧楼盖新楼可以save money
2. 无数据表明新楼总的饱暖制冷费用低于旧楼
3. 是否有出租的市场，以及出租的负面作用
4. 无拆旧楼的必要，忽略旧楼的正面意义，（历史上，感情上）

In the argument, the author claims that Rockingham’s old town hall should be torn down and replaced a new one in order to save a large amount of money. At the first glance, the argument seems plausible and reasonable, because the author points out the new hall should be more energy-efficient than old one and Rockingham maybe gain income by renting some of space As a matter of fact, however, this statement is not persuasive as it seems and cannot be accepted under careful examination and scrutiny.

To begin with, the author does not provide any data to support the conclusion that it would save money to tore old down old town hall and build a new one. It is obvious that the total cost is tremendous to both tear down old hall and build new hall. Even though we concede there are really save money in energy cost between old hall and new one and the town gains the rent, it is possible that the sum of two aspects is greatly smaller than the total cost. Lacking the detailed data of cost and save and a correct comparison, it is hard or even impossible for us to accept the conclusion.

Furthermore, the author only renders that new hall would cost less per square foot to heat and cool than the old one, however, the new hall is much larger than old one. The whole cost to heat and cool is the product of cost per square and total squares, perhaps the product result of new one is equal to old one, even greater than it. Without the specific difference in cost and area, the author’s conclusion is too vague to be convinced.

In addition, the author assumes some place of new hall to be rent without any market survey. Maybe there is no one need to rent space in Rockingham, maybe there are numerous better choices for tenants than new hall. The possibility cannot be excluded that some space of new hall could not be rented. Moreover, even if the space is rented, the author fails to take into account the negative effect of doing so. The town hall is not a common building but the flag of government to some extent. Mixed tenants would harmful to the repute of government or causes some mistaken possibly.

Last but not the least, even though the new hall is necessary, it does not means the old town hall must be torn down in that the author neglects the advantage of old town hall. Because it is one hundred years old, it has certain historical significance not only to Rockingham town but also to people in other town. Perhaps the old town hall could be modified to a museum or tourist site, which should generate income to the town. Possibly, the citizens in Rockingham have the special affection to the old hall

To sum up, based on what has been discussed and analyzed above, it is obvious that the argument is invalid and misleading, and the conclusion reached in the argument is too presumptuous to be accepted. In order to make the conclusion more convincing, the author should provide the detailed and specific number of cost and save between old hall and new one, cites the believable survey about renting the space of new hall and points out the necessary reasons to tear down old hall.

回应
0

使用道具举报

安婧
UID??2156480

特级会员

Rank: 6 Rank: 6

声望: 0
寄托币: 2409
注册时间: 2005-11-10
精华: 0
帖子: 5

沙发

发表于 2005-12-23 00:00:53 |只看该作者

ＡＲＧＵＭＥＮＴ
163The 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."
1.       无数据支持拆掉旧楼盖新楼可以save money
2.       无数据表明新楼总的饱暖制冷费用低于旧楼
3.       是否有出租的市场，以及出租的负面作用
4.       无拆旧楼的必要，忽略旧楼的正面意义，（历史上，感情上）

In the argument, the author claims that Rockingham’s old town hall should be torn down and replaced a new one in order to save a large amount of money. At the first glance, the argument seems plausible and reasonable, because the author points out the new hall should be more energy-efficient than old one and Rockingham maybe gain income by renting some of space As a matter of fact, however, this statement is not persuasive as it seems and cannot be accepted under careful examination and scrutiny.

To begin with, the author does not provide any data to support the conclusion that it would save money to tore old down old town hall[打字的时候大错了吧] and build a new one. It is obvious that the total cost is tremendous to both tear down old hall and build new hall.[冠词呢] Even though we concede there are [用there are 似乎不恰当]really save money in energy cost between old hall and new one and the town gains the rent, it is possible that the sum of two aspects is greatly smaller than the total cost. Lacking the detailed data of cost and save and a correct comparison, it is hard or even impossible for us to accept the conclusion.[举一些例子来说盖新楼可能的大笔花销应该会比较有说服力，建议罗列几个例子。]

Furthermore, the author only renders[再斟酌] that new hall would cost less per square foot to heat and cool than the old one, however, the new hall is much larger than old one.[注意，larger也是作者指出的呢] The whole cost to heat and cool is the product of cost per square and total squares,[重复了哦] perhaps the product result of new one is equal to old one, even greater than it. Without the specific difference in cost and area是想说空间吗？用space是否会好些, the author’s conclusion is too vague to be convinced.

In addition, the author assumes some place of new hall to be rent without any market survey. Maybe there is no one need to rent space in Rockingham[在一个城市里没有人想租房子是不可能的，建议换成in the new town hall], maybe there are numerous better choices for tenants than new hall. The possibility cannot be excluded that some space of new hall could not be rented. Moreover, even if the space is rented, the author fails to take into account the negative effect of doing so. The town hall is not a common building but the flag of government to some extent[再斟酌]. Mixed tenants would harmful to the repute of government or causes some mistaken possibly.[关于市政厅出租不合适的分论点应该再展开。我看这段时的感觉是，看到这里眼前一亮——这是一个好的攻击点，再往后看——没了！好可惜的，应该深入一下。]

Last but not the least, even though the new hall is necessary, it does not means the old town hall must be torn down in that the author neglects the advantage of old town hall. Because it is one hundred years old, it has certain historical significance not only to Rockingham town but also to people in other town. Perhaps the old town hall could be modified to a museum or tourist site, which should generate income to the town. Possibly, the citizens in Rockingham have the special affection to the old hall [和上段一样，感觉一段没写完]

To sum up, based on what has been discussed and analyzed above, it is obvious that the argument is invalid and misleading, and the conclusion reached in the argument is too presumptuous to be accepted. In order to make the conclusion more convincing, the author should provide the detailed and specific number of cost and save between old hall and new one, cites the believable survey about renting the space of new hall and points out the necessary reasons to tear down old hall.

[逻辑错误找得满好，分论点也满好。但是阿狗的论证要深入，你现在基本都是点到为止。驳论，要给人酣畅淋漓的感觉，用牧歌的话说就是找到一个驳斥点就要把他驳得体无完肤。我也是因为这个问题刚刚被牧歌批评了，我们一起改正吧。我的语法和词汇很烂，只能给你最简单的建议，力不从心啊。]

使用道具举报