[a习作temp] ARGUMENT163 第一次模考提前写完～～HOHO 留链必回 [复制链接]

phoenixlw
UID??2382912

高级会员

Rank: 5 Rank: 5

声望: 21
寄托币: 1600
注册时间: 2007-8-15
精华: 1
帖子: 17

电梯直达

楼主

发表于 2007-9-7 21:25:06 |只看该作者 |倒序浏览

题目：ARGUMENT 163 - 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."
字数：442 用时：0:30:00 日期：2007-9-7

The author of this argument asserts that in order to save a large mount of money, Rockingham's old town hall should be torn down and rebuilt another larger and more energy-efficient building. To support this assertion the author cites a fact that the old town hall is too small as well as another fact that it is very costly to heat the old hall in winter. Besides, the advantages of the new building are illustrated, too. However, this assertion has a series of flaws, which render it wholly unpersuasive as it stands.

A threshold problem involves with the notion that the size of the old town hall is too small and thus it should be torn down. On the one hand, it is unnecessary for the hall to accommodate all the people who are employed since they cannot rush into the hall at the same time. On the other hand, even if the hall is small, is it is highly possible that it contains so significant a history that disappearance of the hall will be a great loss of the town. Either scenario could not lend a sound support to the notion that the old hall should be torn down.

Besides, the author commits a fallacy of incomplete comparison between the old town hall and the new building by concluding that the cost of the new building's heating system is lower than the old one since it is more efficient. However, the author ignores that the total cost to heat the new building might be still enormous since the whole area of the building is much larger than that of the old hall, though with a lower cost per square foot. Thus, as the cost of the heating or cooling system is concerned, the reliability of assertion would be weakened.

Last but not least, the notion that to rent out some of the space in the new building in fact indicates that the size of the new building is beyond the pragmatic needs of people there. Since the terminate purpose of the author is to save a considerable amount of money, this notion might serve to undermine the author's assertion oppositely. So, this piece of information on the extra space in the new building reversely proves that the assertion is flawed.

In sum, this assertion, which seems logical and well-organized at first glance, has several flaws within it. To better bolster this argument, the author should prove that the advantages of establishing the new building can compensate the loss of tearing down the old hall. Furthermore, the author also should substantiate that the cost will decline due to the new building indeed.

wish to reborn from ashes
and be bound to