Argument163 G-89互助社8月18日作业 新楼替旧楼问题 限时第一次写这么多字

iamfeatherUID：202850

Argument163  第28篇 让砖头来得更猛烈些吧！
------摘要------
作者：寄托家园作文版普通用户     共用时间：29分38秒     463 words
从2005年7月18日9时28分到2005年7月18日9时29分
------题目------
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.'
------正文------
The arguer concludes that in order to save a considerable amount of money, Rocking ham's century-old town hall should be torn down and replaced by the larger and more energy-efficient building that some citizens have proposed. To substantiate this conclusion, the arguer point out the merits of the new building. However, this argument suffers from several flaws which render it unconvincing as it stands.

To begin with, the arguer assumes that the people in the old building is not comfortable because the old one is too small. Yet, this is not necessarily the case. The arguer fails to point out the opinion of the individual who work in the old building. Are they complaint about the uncomfortable of the old building? In addition, even if they complaint the uncomfortableness of the old building, it is not result in the small spaces of the old building. It is possible as the appliance in the old building is out of reason. If so, this argument amount to poor evidence.

Furthermore, the arguer also assumes that it would save money to build the new building. Nevertheless, it is unwarranted. Firstly, there is no guarantee that the new would cost less than the old one in energy, even if the former costing less per square foot to heat and cool the old hall. It is likely the new one is three sizes as the old one and only 10% less per square foot than the old building. Secondly, the arguer fails to provide evidence about the detail of rent out the new building. Perhaps, in the new building, to enlarge every individual's space, there is not extra space to rent out. Or it is possible that no one will rent the space in the new building as they do not think the government building is a good place to do some office working. All the above-mentioned reasons, if true, would render this argument unconvincing.

Last but not least, the arguer commits a fallacy of hasty generalization. Even if a new building should be set up, it does not follow that the century-old town hall should be torn down. The arguer fails to think other uses of the old building. As the old building has a century-old history, it can be used to tourism. Or to be used as a complement of the new building of the government. With ruling out these alternatives, the argument is unwarranted.

To sum up, the argument is not well-supported. To strengthen it, the arguer should provide more evidence regarding the attitude of the old building and the detail of the cost of the two building. To better evaluate the argument, we need more information concerning the other alternative use of the old building.

polymathUID：179557

顶呀！

polymathUID：179557

------题目------
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.'
------正文------
The arguer concludes that in order to save a considerable amount of money, Rocking ham's century-old town hall should be torn down and replaced by the larger and more energy-efficient building that some citizens have proposed. To substantiate this conclusion, the arguer points out the merits of the new building. However, this argument suffers from several flaws which render it unconvincing as it stands.

To begin with, the arguer assumes that the people in the old building is not comfortable because the old one is too small. Yet, this is not necessarily the case. The arguer fails to point out the opinion of the individual who work in the old building. Are they complaint about the uncomfortable of the old building? In addition, even if they complaint the uncomfortableness of the old building, it is not result in the small spaces of the old building. It is possible as the appliance in the old building is out of reason. If so, this argument amount to这个词组在这里不好吧?可以尝试用relies on poor evidence.

Furthermore, the arguer alsoalso可以去掉,前面有furthermore assumes that it would save money to build the new building. Nevertheless, it is unwarranted. FirstlyFirst, there is no guarantee that the new buildingwould cost less than the old one inat energy, even if the former costing less per square foot to heat and cool the old hall. It is likely the new one is three sizes as the old one and only 10% less per square foot than the old building. SecondlySecond, the arguer fails to provide evidence about the detaildetails of rentrenting out the new building. Perhaps, in the new building, to enlarge every individual's space, there is not extra space to rent out. Or it is possible that no one will rent the space in the new building as they do not think the government building is a good place to do some office working. All the above-mentioned reasons, if true, would render this argument 加个词,asunconvincing.

Last but not least, the arguer commits a fallacy of hasty generalization. Even if a new building should be set up, it does not follow that the century-old town hall should be torn down. The arguer fails to think other uses of the old building. As the old building has a century-old history, it can be used tofor tourism. Or to be used as a complement of the new building of the government. With ruling out these alternatives, the argumentargument's premise is unwarranted.

To sum up, the argument is not well-supported. To strengthen it, the arguer should provide more evidence regarding the attitude of the old building and the detail of the cost of the two building. To better evaluate the argument, we need more information concerning the other alternative use of the old building.

总评:先表示歉意!这篇文章居然这么久没有忍耐来改!我的失职啊!:)
文章的漏洞都找得很不错,批驳的也很好!还有一天就考试了吧!祝你取得好成绩啊!:victory:考完了来综合版的新家报道呀!大家等着你呢/:victory: