[a习作temp] argument164 求互拍 [复制链接]

freeatom
UID：2142222

初级会员

Rank: 3 Rank: 3

声望: 0
寄托币: 717
注册时间: 2005-9-28
精华: 0
帖子: 8

电梯直达

楼主

发表于 2007-4-14 18:09:25 |只看该作者 |倒序浏览

TOPIC: ARGUMENT164 - Claitown University needs both affordable housing for its students and a way to fund the building of such housing. The best solution to this problem is to commission a famous architect known for experimental and futuristic buildings. It is common knowledge that tourists are willing to pay money to tour some of the architect's buildings, so it can be expected that tourists will want to visit this new building. The income from the fees charged to tourists will soon cover the building costs. Furthermore, such a building will attract new students as well as donations from alumni. And even though such a building will be much larger than our current need for student housing, part of the building can be used as office space.
WORDS: 501 TIME: 0:35:00 DATE: 2007-4-14
Claitown大学需要为学生提供负担得起的住房和建造这些住房的融资途径。对于这一问题的最好解决办法就是请一位知名建筑师来设计一幢试验性和未来式的建筑。众所周知游客愿意花钱参观这名建筑师的一些建筑，因此我们可以预测游客将想要参观这座新建筑。从游客那里收取的钱将很快收回建楼的成本。而且，这样一座建筑将会吸引校友的捐款和新学生。尽管这样的建筑将比我们当前学生住房所需的大很多，但它的一部分可以用作办公空间。

The author concludes that we should commission a famous architect to build housing. The argument is problematic in several respects, rending it unconvincing as it stands.

First of all, the author unfairly assumes that the new building will attract the tourists. However the author does not provide more evidence to support it. Though tourists are willing to pay money to tour some of the architect's buildings, but it is possible that the building in the university is not well designed and thus no tourists would like to visit it. Even if the building is well designed, whether the tourists will pay money to visit it is still unwarranted. As there maybe many other such building outside the university, perhaps the transportation system is not that convenient in the university than outside, the tourists are reluctant to visit it. Moreover, the author has neglect the side affects of the tourists to the students living in the building. If the tourists come at night, then it will affect the rests of the students.

Given that the tourist will visit it, whether the income will cover the expense of building is dubious. The experimental and futuristic buildings often cost more than the normal building; it is possible that the building is so expensive that in many years, the incomes of the tourists will not enough to cover the expense.

Furthermore, the argument based on the assumption that a building will attract new students as well as donations from alumni. First, new building is only one factor that attracts the students and it is not a important one. Common sense is that when the students consider a university, they may first consider the faculties, the facilities and where the university located. If the faculties of the universities are not strong and the facilities are bad then other university, or the city does not locate in a big city, then even if he university, there is no guarantee that a new building will attract the students. Seconds the author fail to convince me that the alumni's donation will increase due to the build of the new building. It is possible that without the new building the alumni will still donate a lot of money to the university.

Last but not least, whether the building can be used for office and housing is open to doubt. The author does not support that experimental and futuristic buildings will be suitable for the housing and office. It is possible as it is specially build for the using of housing; the room is very small there and thus is unsuitable for using as a office. As we all know normally the students housing is separate from the office. If they are together, then it would be inconvenient for both the students and the faculty. Students often have parties in their dormitory; it is possible that the noise may affect the faculties who are in the office. Without considering this, the author's conclusion is unjustified.

In sum, the argument is logically flawed and unconvincing.