Argument 164 有点啰嗦有点乱~求猛拍

纠结帝UID: 2755596

164.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.

Claitown大学需要为学生提供负担得起的住房和建造这些住房的融资途径。对于这一问题的最好解决办法就是请一位知名建筑师来设计一幢试验性和未来式的建筑。众所周知游客愿意花钱参观这名建筑师的一些建筑，因此我们可以预测游客将想要参观这座新建筑。从游客那里收取的钱将很快收回建楼的成本。而且，这样一座建筑将会吸引校友的捐款和新学生。尽管这样的建筑将比我们当前学生住房所需的大很多，但它的一部分可以用作办公空间。

The arguer's solution that Claitown University should designate a well-known architect to build experimental housing seems beneficial not only to students but also to its fortune and fame. Students are accessible to affordable housing and, by the way, groups of tourists are drawn to visit the new building, and the university itself can attract new students and donations. However, the argument is not completely well-reasoned.

As is known to us, quite a lot of famous architectures are located in tourist spot or have been tourist spot themselves, a number of which are symbols of religion or site, like museums, churches, palaces and skyscrapers. For these architectures are designed to expose authority and charm, they attract tourists continuously through decades and centuries. Indeed, the basic function of student housing is accommodating students, totally different from exhibition. The arguer rests on the unproven assumption that tourists would like to pay money to visit it merely for the architect's repute instead of the architecture itself.


In addition, the arguer recommends that part of the housing should be used as office place. The students and teachers in the office will suffer from noise from the dormitory. Assuming the building is attractive to tourists, unfortunately, no one is patient enough to live or work in a housing disturbed constantly by different tourists. Neither the students nor the visitors will feel at ease in the housing.

Far from the arrangement of the building, it must cost large amount to commit such a famous architect and construct an experimental building because architects like him are very popular nowadays across the world. The argument creates a paradox that Claitown is able to cover the sum in a short time just by offering students reasonable rent and charging tourists fond of the architect. To maintain such a fashionable building, more expense may be involved in successively. The argument just cannot convince me that the housing is as profitable as estimated.

Finally, the arguer predicts that the creative housing will appeal to new students as well as donations without any solid evidence. On the contrary, the alumnus may become annoyed, regarding this building as abuse of donations, which probably hold them back from donating again. In the same way, new students will be doubt about the use of the funds and the conception of the university, and thus drop it. Also, The arguer foresees the scale of the building may be larger than needed, which suggest some hidden plans preventing
the arguer from making a fair judgement.

To sum up, the arguer rest on unconvincing reasoning to support the project of committing a famous architect to build students housing. The university and the arguer should conduct more surveys and figure out the merits and demerits before making such a decision.