ARGUMENT163 by Misir (第七次作业)

misirUID: 2684938

TOPIC: ARGUMENT163 - 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."
WORDS: 333/471          TIME: 00:30:00          DATE: 2010-2-21 2:56:56

The conclusion that they should tear down the old small century hall and replace it by a new larger one in order to save a mount of money seems obvious at first glance, however, it cannot stand up to scrutiny, for several reasons I will discuss below.

To begin with, the author makes a direct relationship between the number of people who are employed by the town with the conclusion that the town hall is too small. There is no evidence to substantiate it. It is entirely possible that the town hall have updated their official device, which occupies a lot of space, which makes the town hall seems too small. Or perhaps, the town hall recently takes some of the space to build other special-using rooms, for instance an advanced conference room or something like that. Without ruling out either alternative explanation, the author cannot prove the relationship.

In addition, the assertion that the larger building will be more energy efficient is based on tenuous evidence that it cost less per square foot to heat and cool than the old hall. The argument does not provide any evidence that the whole money to heat and cool with the amplified area can offset the less per square foot's expense. Therefore, it is possible that the larger hall with the large space costs more than the old one. What's more, the author fails to provide what the climate will be like in the future of the town. We can challenge the assertion that the climate will be mild in the future, so there is no need to heat in the winter and cool in the summer. To make it convincing, the author should collect some statistical data about the weather and climate to make a reasonable prediction

Finally, the author has not provide the exact number of employees in the town hall, and he or she cannot predict how many people will be employed or laid off in the future, so the assertion that they can rent out some of the space to generate the income is unpersuasive as it stands. Furthermore, the author does not take the old town hall's culture value into account. Maybe the old town hall is so beautiful that every resident treats it as the hallmark of the town. If it is replaced by a modern one, the residents will be upset and, what’s worse, it will result for an irrevocable error to the culture as well as history. Thus, the author may make a survey or poll to get the voice from the residents.

In conclusion, the argument, while it seems logical at first, has several flaws as discussed above. To make it logically acceptable, the author would have to substantiate whether the recommendation is feasible and get more advice about the resident and the meteorologists.

桔子susanUID: 2754084

貌似没有安排互改的顺序，我上一次有一篇argument，我来晚了，他人已经改得很透彻了，就已经没有帮你改了。sorry。就先修改这一篇吧。

The conclusion that they should tear down the old small century hall and replace it by a new larger one in order to save a mount of money seems obvious(这里有些问题，个人认为如果来不及改述作者用词，直接用题目的叙述也比不通顺的语句好一点). At first glance, however, it cannot stand up to scrutiny, for several reasons I will discuss below.

To begin with, the author makes a direct relationship between the number of people who are employed by the town with the conclusion that the town hall is too small. There is no evidence to substantiate it. It is entirely possible that the town hall have updated their official device, which occupies a lot of space, which makes the town hall seems too small. Or perhaps, the town hall recently takes some of the space to build other special-using rooms, for instance an advanced conference room or something like that. Without ruling out either alternative explanation, the author cannot prove the relationship.
工作人数不能说明town hall小
说实话，这个理由我还真没有想到，不知道因不应该论述那么多。但单单从论述来看，我有些提议：这是你提到的两点理由：1.the town hall have updated their official device 2.the town hall recently takes some of the space to build other special-using rooms 首先，你的主语用了town hall, 这是一座房子，不能有这些行为吧。应该是在twon hall的工作人员如twon council作主语比较合适。其次，你的论证在叙述时认为这些可能的措施都已经执行，但是认真想来，如果已经执行了这些措施还有效，外人看来，就不会认为town hall小了。所以，我认为在叙述时，可以是（用第一点为例），town hall小了，可能是因为办公物品太繁杂，占据了过多的空间，如果适当调整，town hall就可能够用了。从而不必新建，更省钱。

In addition, the assertion that the larger building will be more energy efficient is based on tenuous evidence that it cost less per square foot to heat and cool than the old hall. The argument does not provide any evidence that the whole money to heat and cool with the amplified area can offset the less per square foot's expense. Therefore, it is possible that the larger hall with the large space costs more than the old one. What's more, the author fails to provide what the climate will be like in the future of the town. We can challenge the assertion that the climate will be mild in the future, so there is no need to heat in the winter and cool in the summer. To make it convincing, the author should collect some statistical data about the weather and climate to make a reasonable prediction
不能充分证明大的房子能更加节能
这一段，对于天气变化的批驳有点牵强。毕竟天气突然变到冬夏都不用空调等设备还是少见的。你可以说当地的天气可能需要用到这些设备的时间不多，即使大房子更节能，也不会剩下很钱。

Finally, the author has not provide the exact number of employees in the town hall, and he or she cannot predict how many people will be employed or laid off in the future, so the assertion that they can rent out some of the space to generate the income is unpersuasive as it stands. /Furthermore, the author does not take the old town hall's culture value into account. Maybe the old town hall is so beautiful that every resident treats it as the hallmark of the town.
If it is replaced by a modern one, the residents will be upset and, what’s worse, it will result for an irrevocable error to the culture as well as history. Thus, the author may make a survey or poll to get the voice from the residents.
这一段/前后就不是说的一个点，放在一块就不合适。第一点论证有点单薄（有两点可以驳。一是就如你所说的可能没有多余的空间（在这里你的论述中举laid off就有点不合适了，直接说可能会雇用更多的人好一点）；二是即使有多余的空间也不一定有人租）。


In conclusion, the argument, while it seems logical at first, has several flaws as discussed above. To make it logically acceptable, the author would have to substantiate whether the recommendation is feasible and get more advice about the resident and the meteorologists.

其实，我认为这个argument有一点很重要的矛盾，你没有指出来。就是开头所说的In order to save a considerable amount of money, Rockingham's century-old town hall should…你的论证都没有提到会不会更省钱呢，要把你前面的论述都与省钱连系起来更好一些。至少也要在文中提到省钱呀。

不管怎样，看得出misir总结了自己的模版，能限时写了，这比我好多了。如果有什么问题我说得不清楚或者我有哪些错误，欢迎来探讨。还有就是我的文字功底很差，至于句式，语法，用词方面，我就帮不上什么忙了，sorry。