[a习作temp] Argument163 第二稿在2楼，请指教 [复制链接]

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

电梯直达

楼主

发表于 2005-12-21 16:00:32 |只看该作者 |倒序浏览

Argument163 (589)

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."

提纲：
1、就市政厅空间狭小和花费巨大病不一定要拆，拆后新建不一定会省钱。
2、新市政厅不一定节能。
3、为了增加R市的收入不一定要拆旧市政厅。
4、增加收入不等于节省开支。

  In the local newspaper in Rochingham(R), the author said R’s century-old town hall should be torn down and replaced by the larger and more energy-efficient building to save a considerable amount of money. The author pointed two reasons to support his conclusion, which is the old one is too small to comfortably accommodate the employees and the cost in the air-condition system is too large. But he or she did not offer more detailed information to make me agree with his view.

First, in the newspaper, the author said to save the considerable amount of money, the old town hall should be torn down and replaced by the larger and more energy-efficient one, but it will not save money by all means. On the one hand, a new town hall must have larger space, more advanced communication system, more effective air-condition system, more convenient elevator system and so on. Hence, to build a new one, such as that, must cost plenty of money. On the other hand, to save money do not need to build a new building. We can improve our work circumstance in the old one; such as add accessorial equipment, redecorate the hall, reconstruct the air-condition system. Anyhow, a small rebuilding must be cheaper than building a new hall.

  Second, one of the reasons the author show us is that the old town hall is very costly to heat it in winter and cool it in summer. But, I do not think the new one will use less electricity. Although the new hall costs less per square foot to heat and cool than the old one, the author pointed the new one is larger also. So, the total expense maybe is much lager than the old. Moreover, when the new building is used, its modern illumination system and elevator system need more electricity, and the government must hire some professional person to maintain these systems. Therefore, the new hall cannot save money. We could reconstruct the air-condition system to solve the problem the author pointed out.

  Third, the author mentioned to increase the income of R. In my opinion, to increase the income should not be torn down the century-old town hall, instead of protecting it as a local travel industry site. Above all, it has century-old history and became the symbol of R already. Then, as a local travel industry site, it can raise the financial income through the other way. So, the old town hall should not be torn down as a historied building.

  Finally, the author wanted to rent out some of the space in the new building to generate income for the town of R. The goal the author wanted to build a new building is the save money, here he or she bring forward to generate income also. The author garbled the two conceptions between saving money and generating income. Even if to rent out some of the space can generate income, it does not mean can save money at the same time. If the expense is too large for the income to fill, the government would spend more money than what it spends nowadays. What’s more, whether to rent out the space in the town hall is appropriate is still need to argue. Hence, this point cannot make me to agree with the author.

  In sum, in order to persuade me to agree with building a new town hall instead of the old one, the author still need to do some more investigations and forecast to offer more effective information.

[ Last edited by 安婧 on 2005-12-23 at 00:34 ]

回应
0

使用道具举报

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

沙发

发表于 2005-12-22 13:01:09 |只看该作者

Argument163 (589)

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."

提纲：
1、       就市政厅空间狭小和花费巨大病不一定要拆，拆后新建不一定会省钱。
2、       新市政厅不一定节能。
3、       为了增加R市的收入不一定要拆旧市政厅。[我的理解是：不是为了增加收入才拆旧楼的，增加收入是拆旧楼建新楼后的一个顺带效益]
4、       增加收入不等于节省开支。

  In the local newspaper in Rochingham(R), the author said R’s century-old town hall should be torn down and replaced by the larger and more energy-efficient building to save a considerable amount of money. The author pointed two reasons to support his conclusion, which is the old one is too small to comfortably accommodate the employees and the cost in the air-condition system is too large. But he or she [直接说author 或者 argument就可以吧] did not offer more detailed information to make me agree with his  [the] view.

First, in the newspaper,[删掉] the author said to save the considerable amount of money[这个目的状语还是放在主句后面比较好，say后面加to …感觉怪怪的], the old town hall should be torn down and replaced by the larger and more energy-efficient one, but it will not save money by all means[说得有点绝对了]. On the one hand, a new town hall must have larger space, more advanced communication system, more effective air-condition system, more convenient elevator system and so on. Hence, to build a new one, such as that, must cost plenty of money.[短句太多了，Hence, it must cost plenty of money to build such a new hall. ] On the other hand, to save money do not need to build a new building. We can improve our work circumstance in the old one; such as add accessorial equipment, redecorate the hall, reconstruct the air-condition system. Anyhow, a small rebuilding must be cheaper than building a new hall.

  Second, one of the reasons the author show [shows] us is that the old town hall is very costly to heat it in winter and cool it in summer. But, I do not think the new one will use less electricity. Although the new hall costs less per square foot to heat and cool than the old one, the author pointed [out] the new one is larger also. So, the total expense maybe is much lager than the old. Moreover, when the new building is used, its modern illumination system and elevator system need more electricity, and the government must hire some professional person to maintain these systems. [个人觉得这个驳斥点放在第一段中比较好] Therefore, the new hall cannot save money. We could reconstruct the air-condition system to solve the problem the author pointed out.

  Third, the author mentioned to increase the income of R. In my opinion, to increase the income should not be torn down the century-old town hall, instead of protecting it as a local travel industry site. Above all, it has century-old history and became the symbol of R already. Then, as a local travel industry site, it can raise the financial income through the other way. So, the old town hall should not be torn down as a historied [historical] building.

  Finally, the author wanted to rent out some of the space in the new building to generate income for the town of R. The goal the author wanted to build a new building [修建新楼不是作者的意图] is the save [to save] money, here he or she [the author] bring [brings] forward to generate income also. The author garbled the two conceptions between saving money and generating income. Even if to rent out some of the space can generate income, it does not mean can save money at the same time. If the expense is too large for the income to fill, the government would spend more money than what it spends nowadays. What’s more, whether to rent out the space in the town hall is appropriate is still need to argue. Hence, this point cannot make me to agree with the author.

  In sum, in order to persuade me to agree with building a new town hall instead of the old one, the author still need to do some more investigations and forecast to offer more effective information. [结尾还是简短了点，而且有点模板化，最好在后面再说两句和本文相关的]
[总的逻辑还是比较清楚，能够找到很多驳斥点，不过我个人的习惯是一个段落主攻一个方面的逻辑错误，例如1和3中都有一部分强调旧楼不用拆，按照我的习惯会调整一下：1. 修建新楼花费巨大 2. 新楼的节能性不能保证总费用低于旧楼，3. 旧楼可以不用拆 4. ….
还有好佩服你写了这么多，不过语言可以简洁点，毕竟argu只有30min，呵呵，个人意见，仅供参考，]

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

板凳

发表于 2005-12-23 00:29:11 |只看该作者

Argument163 (589)

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."

提纲：
1、       就市政厅空间狭小和花费巨大病不一定要拆，拆后新建不一定会省钱。
2、       新市政厅不一定节能。
3、       不一定要拆旧市政厅。
4、       增加收入不等于节省开支。

  In the local newspaper in Rochingham(R), the author said R’s century-old town hall should be torn down and replaced by the larger and more energy-efficient building to save a considerable amount of money. The author pointed two reasons to support his conclusion, which is the old one is too small to comfortably accommodate the employees and the cost in the air-condition system is too large. Butthe author did not offer more detailed information to make me agree with the view.

First, in the newspaper, the author said, the old town hall should be torn down and replaced by the larger and more energy-efficient one to save the considerable amount of money, but it maybe cannot save money by all means. On the one hand, a new town hall must have larger space, more advanced communication system, more effective air-condition system, more convenient elevator system and so on , hence, it must cost plenty of money to build such a new hall. On the other hand, to save money do not need to build a new building. We can improve our work circumstance in the old one; such as add accessorial equipment, redecorate the hall, reconstruct the air-condition system. Anyhow, a small rebuilding must be cheaper than building a new hall.

  Second, one of the reasons the author shows us is that the old town hall is very costly to heat it in winter and cool it in summer. But, I do not think the new one will use less electricity. Although the new hall costs less per square foot to heat and cool than the old one, the author pointed out the new one is larger also. So, the total expense maybe is much lager than the old. Moreover, when the new building is used, its modern illumination system and elevator system need more electricity, and the government must hire some professional person to maintain these systems. Therefore, the new hall cannot save money. We could reconstruct the air-condition system to solve the problem the author pointed out.

  Third,even if a new hall should be built, the old one is not must be torn down. In my opinion, protecting it as a local travel industry site, instead of, tearing down the century-old town hall is a good way to increase R’s income. Above all, it has century-old history and became the symbol of R already. Then, as a local travel industry site, it can raise the financial income through the other way. So, the old town hall should not be torn down as a historical building.

  Finally, the author wanted to rent out some of the space in the new building to generate income for the town of R. The goal the author wanted to build a new building is to save money, the author brings forward to generate income also. The author garbled the two conceptions between saving money and generating income. Even if to rent out some of the space can generate income, it does not mean can save money at the same time. If the expense is too large for the income to fill, the government would spend more money than what it spends nowadays. What’s more, whether to rent out the space in the town hall is appropriate is still need to argue. Hence, this point cannot make me to agree with the author.

  In sum, in order to persuade me to agree with building a new town hall instead of the old one, the author still need to do some more investigations and forecast to offer more effective information ,for example, the anticipative cost of the new hall, whether the old one should be torn down and so on.

使用道具举报