argument163 欢迎拍文互改小组

yaniiUID: 2807225

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."

The editorial recommends the Rockingham's (Rh's) old town hall be replaced by a larger new one for saving money. However, its supporting evidences - several plausible assumptions and an assertive suggestion - are open to query, rendering it amount to a poor advice.

Turn to the first argument that the old town hall is too small to comfortably accommodate the town’s servants. What is the argument based on? Especially the vague word "comfortably"? Is it on complaints of some particular employees, whose concern is inexorable on being comfortable? Or the announcement of the authorities
without sufficient investigation on the hall and just taking it as an opportunity to improve their office conditions? If so, the civilian of Rh must be on guard not be deceived. On the other side, if the old hall is really not large enough to hold so many employees, purchasing some floors of established apt building or just constructing a small one to enlarge the gross office space both may be good choices. On the contrary, building a completely new one will inevitably waste a considerable amount of money rather save any.

Moreover, the editor assumes that the heat and cold fee is inefficient and costly
in the old town, and only by building a new one can they by solved. Yet, he overlooks or ignores intentionally the alternative solution. Through redecoration and replacing the old inefficient appliance, it may be equally efficient in the old hall. Besides, even new building may be more energy efficient in per square, the total fee of it may offset, if not exceed its benefits.

As for the editor's suggestion, renting out some of the space, in the would-be new building, thus generating income for the town is particularly ridiculous. Will the government build an excessive large one to spare space for rent or will it build a sizeable one to accommodate its employees? In the first situation, a higher front-end investment would be extremely high and may beyond the government can afford; If the government really want to expand income by renting rooms, why don’t they just build some? Does this consideration have any bearing with replacing the old town hall? On the second situation, there would be little space, if any, to rent, and the expanding income would be too small to mention. Additionally, what about the local rent market?
Is it prosperous or floundering? Absent such information, it's likely that the extra space will be vacant for a long time, without efficient utility, let alone expanding income.

As long as there is a common sense, all know that this editorial may be nothing but a propaganda for some intentional people, and the ignorant resident should be wary of being hoaxed. To rebut my conclusion and bolster the original one, the editor needs to provide more information about how come the old town hall is too small, and that the redecoration and replace of old heat and cold system may cost as much, or even more. As to the space of the new building, the government should consult with the taxpayers.