argument164求拍！

芊芊QQUID: 2647827

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.

As Claitown University is confronted with problems in improving its students’ housing conditions, the author suggests that Claitown University should employ a famous architect to build an experimental and futuristic building. The reason why the author holds that opinion is as followed: First, this architect’s buildings are highly adored by people who perhaps would be willing to pay to see his buildings. Second, the building could help Claitown University to attract more students and donations and benefits faculty by changing part of the building into offices. However, this argument is totally devoid of logic and reasoning.

To begin with, the fact that tourists are willing to pay to tour some of this architect’s buildings does not indicates that they will surely to pay to see this dorm building. This building may not be one of the architect’s best works and as a dorm in university, it may not be able to arose people’s interests. Even if people would like to pay to see this building, the author fails to provide us any information about how much money Claitown university could get from the fees charged from tourists. Thus, we can hardly evaluate whether it is worth to build this new building, let alone it will bring us profits. Besides, the author overlooks the negative effects of charging tourists. The life of students who live in this building would be seriously affected by these tourists.

In the second place, the author’s prediction that Claitown University could attract more students and donation from alumni would hardly come true. It is common sense that when students choose their universities they consider more about factors such as: location, professors, ranking and tuitions. There would be few students who select their own universities just because the dorm building is attractive. On the other hand, alumni usually donate their money to the departments or universities that are regarded as full of potential and very promising. It is ridiculous for people to make such decision just depend on the appearance of the buildings.

In the second place, it is possible not a good idea for Claitown University to change part of the building into office space. First of all, the author has not provided us any information about the number of teachers and the number of offices in Claitown University. Thus it is entirely possible that there is enough space for offices and as a result, there is no need to change part of the dorm into office. Then, the author ignores the possible troubles for teachers who work in a students’ dorm building.   

Finally, it is not necessary for the university to build a new dorm building and even if the new dorm is inevitably to be built, it has not to be experimental. The primarily goal for Claitown University to project to build such a building is that it could improve students’ living conditions and accommodate more students. However, it is too hastily for the author to make a conclusion that building a new dorm is the best way. There are many other good methods to solve this problem, such as: promoting students to live with the families located outside of this university, or encouraging more students to share one room which is good for them to learn how to get along with others. Even if the foregoing methods are all not perfect and a new building is inevitably to be built, then there is no need to be experimental since it would hardly go along with other school buildings.

To sum up, based on the foregoing analysis, we can see that this argument is not very warranted and is seriously undermined by some false assumptions. In order to bolster this argument, the author should rule out the possibilities that the building would not attract donation and tourists as well. In additional, more information about the number of teachers and offices should be mentioned. The author should also take other methods which could solve this problem well into consideration.