【欢迎拍文小组】2010/07/09-----argument163

clarence8UID: 2813388

提纲：
1.
有些人建议存在问题1 不知道这些人的总数，难以确定其合理性，2 不知道这些人是什么群体，可能会别有用心，建筑商等
2.
关于old hall的不舒服问题：1、小不一定就不舒服，如果它的基础设施像座椅、洗手间、灯光等都很精致，典雅，未必换了新的大的就好。2、 hall的功能并未提及，可能只是用作当地一些达官贵人会面所用，已经足够大了。3、雇佣的人感到不舒服并不一定代表当地人也觉得不舒服，因为他们之间存在一些生活习惯、意识形态的区别，或者因为不可知的原因外地人对当地的一切东西都存在偏见
相反的旧楼可能有一些历史的意义在
3.
Old hall的浪费问题：1、 我们并不知道R 镇的气候如何。 再说供暖供冷花费高，也没有必要直接拆掉啊，可以更新设备2、对于新楼只提到了per square节省，一来不知道到底省多少，如果只有一小部分，那也没必要，二来new hall 倘若面积很大，花费将不比old hall 少。
4.
对于新楼而言，作者并未提及新楼建设所需要的花费。而且关于后期的租住问题作者也没有调查过有多少公司个人愿意租住，能够多少价位。即便都合适，盖一栋新楼也没必要非得拆旧楼，还得多花拆楼费
TOPIC: ARGUMENT163 - The following is takenfrom the editorial section of the local newspaper in Rockingham.

"In order to save a considerableamount of money, Rockingham's century-old town hall should be torn down and replacedby the larger and more energy-efficient building that some citizens haveproposed. The old town hall is too small to comfortably accommodate the numberof people who are employed by the town. In addition, it is very costly to heatthe old hall in winter and cool it in summer. The new, larger building would bemore energy efficient, costing less per square foot to heat and cool than theold hall. Furthermore, it would be possible to rent out some of the space inthe new building, thereby generating income for the town of Rockingham."
WORDS: 600
TIME: 00:50:00
DATE: 2010/7/9 11:20:49

This editorial recommends the necessity of replacingthe old hall by a new, larger and more energy-efficient building, in order tosave a lot. The author bases this recommendation on three facts: the old one isnot big enough to fulfill the employees’ requirement; the new one cost less persquare to heat and cool than the old one; and the new building can also berented out to get extra income. As further consideration, this argument suffersfrom several critical flaws, and thus unconvincing.

First of all, the editorial fails to indicatehow many and what kind of groups those who proposed this advice are. What ifthey are just a small part of the residents in Rockingham? For instance thegovernment officers, the builders, the furniture sellers, etc. who perhaps proposedthe idea for some consequences that can’t let anyone else know. Regardless ofthe actual identifications of these people, the persuasion of this are greatlydebilitated.

Secondly, it’s questionable that whetherthe old hall is uncomfortable for the sake of small size. As common sense anddaily life tells us, small things always mean elegant simplicity. When the oldhall service its consumers with mellow sofas, tidy washing rooms and mild light,people won’t feel satisfied any more. What’s more, the writer doesn’t mentionthe function of the hall in his passage. As a result, such large building willbe superfluous if it is used just for holding parties of small groups of people.The author’s assumption that those employees oppose the existence of the oldhall is quite unwarranted. With different habits, customs, and ideology, howcan the local residents rely on their viewpoints? Without ruling out those possibilities,the writer’s assumption is not defensible.

Thirdly, the argument is problematic inasserting the cost of heat and cool every year. On one hand, we cannot ensurethat it’s really necessary to spend money on this kind of work, without the statisticsof Rockingham's annual temperature. On the other hand, even though the new halldoes cost less than the old one per square, with a larger acreage, the totalcosts might be greater than used to be. Meanwhile, large expenses call for the updatingof the air-conditioner rather than replacing the whole building. In fact, theremuch more appropriate alternative methods to save the money.

Finally, the argument assumes without justificationthe money spending on building a new town hall nowadays. As the cost ofbuilding materials and builders’ salaries are raising quickly, this recommendationis not as wise as the writer thinks. There are no evidences which can foreseethe prospect of renting after completed. Investigating if there are anyindividuals and institutions that are willing to rent the space in the newhall, and how much rent could we receive should be placed at the first step.Unless those surveys draw the conclusion of the possibility to build the newone can we accept the author’s advice.

In conclusion, the arguer fails tosubstantiate his claim that it’s unavoidable to set up a new hall as an substitutefor the old one, because the evidence cited in the analysis does not lendstrong support to what the arguer maintains. To strengthen the argument, theauthor would have to provide more information with regard to the convincingevidence of the shortcomings of the old town hall. Additionally, he would haveto demonstrate that the new hall does save large amount money once it’s builded.Therefore, if the argument had included the given factors discussed above, itwould have been more thorough and logically acceptable.