Argument163，高频，但是感觉思路没打开，盼赐教！

AlierUID: 159518

Argument163  第7篇 让砖头来得更猛烈些吧！
------摘要------
作者：寄托家园作文版普通用户     共用时间：32分29秒     399 words
从2005年3月11日10时57分到2005年3月11日11时32分
------题目------
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.'
------正文------
The speaker advises that Rockingham's old town hall should be replaced by a new one because it may help save a considerable money. While it appears reasonable at the first sight, careful scrutiny reveals several flaws in his reasoning that make this suggestion unacceptable.

To begin with, the evidences cited in the argument are insufficient to prove that the new hall will be money-saving. It only mentioned that the per square foot costing to heat and cool of the new hall is cheaper than that of the old hall, but the exact area scales of the two halls are not given. Deducted from the description in the argument that the new hall is so large that some of its space can be rented out, it is quite possible that  the total cost of it to heat and cool will be far more than that of the old one, which may cause contrary result to the author's assumption.

Besides, the author also ignores other important cost in this process. As we all know,  it usually costs much to tore down a house and it may cost much more to build a new one. As referred in the argument, the new hall is much larger than the old one, thus it is imaginary they have to spend much money to buy a larger field. Also,to construct the modern house, which is more energy efficient as the speaker described, they still have to pay much to hire a high-quality construction company to do so. Such costs all are unavoidable and should not be neglected by the speaker, especially in considering the economic effect of this project.

Finally, the suggestion could not be hastily adopted lacking of more support from its citizens. In the argument, it is only said that some citizens proposed this plan, which implies some did not. While the town hall is an office building for government, which is paid mainly by the taxes of its citizens, its construction or tearing down should all requires the admission of at least the majority of citizens there. Without gaining more people's support in this plan, the author's suggestion could not be adopted soon.

In sum, the author's advice is not as sound as it stands. To make it more convincing, he needs to do more exact calculation of the project's cost and he should also get the credence of more citizens there.

alloyUID: 158669

The speaker advises that Rockingham's old town hall should be replaced by a new one because it may help save a considerable money[a money?]. While it appears reasonable at the first sight, careful scrutiny reveals several flaws in his reasoning that make this suggestion unacceptable.

To begin with, the evidences[没有s，把我也弄糊涂了，翻了好几个模板都没有s] cited in the argument are insufficient to prove that the new hall will be money-saving. It only mentioned[mentions] that the per square foot costing to heat and cool of the new hall is cheaper than that of the old hall, but the exact area scales of the two halls are not given. Deducted from the description in the argument that the new hall is so large that some of its space can be rented out, it is quite possible that the total cost of it to heat and cool[改成of heating and cooling] will be far more than that of the old one, which may cause contrary result to the author's assumption.

Besides, the author also ignores other important cost in this process. As we all know, it usually costs much to tore down a house and it may cost much more to build a new one[有点累赘，不要第二个it。。。]. As referred in the argument, the new hall is much larger than the old one, thus it is imaginary they have to spend much money to buy a larger field. Also,to construct the modern house, which is more energy efficient as the speaker described, they still have to pay much to hire a high-quality construction company to do so. Such costs all are unavoidable and should not be neglected by the speaker, especially in considering the economic effect of this project.

Finally, the suggestion could not be hastily adopted lacking of more support from its citizens. In the argument, it is only said that some citizens proposed[have proposed] this plan, which implies some did not. While the town hall is an office building for government, which is paid mainly by the taxes of its citizens, its construction or tearing down should all requires the admission of at least the majority of citizens there. Without gaining more people's support in this plan, the author's suggestion could not be adopted soon.

In sum, the author's advice is not as sound as it stands. To make it more convincing, he needs to do more exact calculation of the project's cost and he should also get the credence of more citizens there.
[整体结构很好，很均衡，比我的好多了，并且展开的都很好，有点羡慕，：），不过还是有些语法问题，我今天也是写得163，也改下我的，呵呵]

alloyUID: 158669

------题目------
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.'

正文：
Argument163――391words――33`――12/04
In this argument, the arguer claims that replace the century-old town hall with a large efficiently hall will automatically save money. To support the argument, the arguer points out that the old hall is not big enough to accommodate the employed workers and it is a costly expense to heat or cool the hall. In addition, the arguer reasons that the more-efficient new hall will increase income of the town by renting out the space. As it stands, the argument suffers from several critical fallacies.

In the first place, the arguer fails to convince us that the old hall should be torn down. As it informed in the argument that there are only "some" people who propose to replace the old hall, it is possible that most people of the town do not agree the decision to have a new hall. In addition, the low efficient to heat or cool the hall may merely because the heat or cool experiment is useless which has no relationship with the hall. Moreover, the hall is century-old and it should be preserved as an interest to attract visitors instead of to destroy it.

In the second place, the new hall might not be better than the old hall in many aspects. For the new hall is larger than the old one, maybe it will cost more money to heat or cool the hall even though it cost less per square foot. Additionally, to rent out the place in the new hall to make money is a unreasonable assumption. If the otiose place of the hall can not be rented out, it will be an even tremendous (enormous) lost.

Finally, it should be carefully considered that replace the hall will save much money. To remove the old hall and built a new hall is certainly a tremendous expense, maybe the town can not even afford the expense. If it is only a small town and the old hall is the only useful office building, it will be a hard time for the officers or the town employers without both the old hall and the new hall.

In sum, no substantial evidence is provided to convince us that replace the old hall will save a considerable amount of money. The arguer should do more work to find out whether it is a good proposition to replace the old hall.

点点滴滴走过UID: 195083

猴哥上的一些提示：
1 更大更有效的新楼花费会很大，不一定省钱
2  新楼的更大的供暖降温费用也会很高， 没有证据表明一定有人租，更不要说盈利
3 老楼的费用可以有其他办法解决，比如更换供暖降温设备
4 老楼的其他价值：历史文化价值；旅游价值

kawayieUID: 200247

399字？楼主是限时完成的吗？介绍一下经验吧。

AlierUID: 159518

to alloy：（没找到你的帖子，只有发在这里了，^-^）
Argument163――391words――33`――12/04
In this argument, the arguer claims that replacereplacing the century-old town hall with a largelarger efficientlyefficient hall will automatically save money. To support the argument, the arguer points out that the old hall is not big enough to accommodate the employed workers and it is a costly expense to heat or cool the hall. In addition, the arguer reasons that the more-efficient new hall will increase income of the town by renting out the space. As it stands, the argument suffers from several critical fallacies.开头不错，不过模版痕迹有点重哦

In the first place, the arguer fails to convince us that the old hall should be torn down. As it informed in the argument that there are only "some" people who propose to replace the old hall, it is possible that most people of the town do not agree the decision to have a new hall. In addition, the low efficientefficiency to heat or cool the hall may merely because the heat or cool experiment is useless 这个有点牵强，怎么跟hall 没关系呢。我觉得你应该是想说这个不一定非要通过拆除hall来解决吧。which has no relationship with the hall. Moreover, the hall is century-old and maybe，不要太肯定，毕竟没有证据说明它有文化价值it should be preserved as an interest to attract visitors instead of to destroy it.

In the second place, the new hall might not be better than the old hall in many aspects. 这个点就有点偏了，在这个argument中并没有涉及到哪个好的比较，只是说新的有利于省钱，那么你就要扣这个点写。Forsince the new hall is larger than the old one, maybe it will cost more money to heat or cool the hall even though it cost less per square foot.这句不错，比我的简洁 Additionally, to rent out the place in the new hall to make money is a unreasonable assumption. If the otiose place of the hall can not be rented out, it will be an even tremendous (enormous) lost.这个点没太说清楚，我觉得应该说它只是有可能性，不是必然能租出去。

Finally, it should be carefully considered thatwhether吧 replacereplacing the hall will save much money. To remove the old hall and built a new hall is certainly a tremendous expense, .maybe the town can not even afford the expense这句感觉没什么必要. If it is only a small town and the old hall is the only useful office building, it will be a hard time for the officers or the town employers without both the old hall and the new hall.这个点跟主题句：省钱关系不大哦，要注意

In sum, no substantial evidence is provided to convince us that replace the old hall will save a considerable amount of money. The arguer should do more work to find out whether it is a good proposition to replace the old hall.

主要问题是每段的主题扣得不太准哦，还有段内展开还需要加强，加油！！

skating_dollUID: 168003

Argument163 第7篇 让砖头来得更猛烈些吧！
------摘要------
作者：寄托家园作文版普通用户 共用时间：32分29秒 399 words
从2005年3月11日10时57分到2005年3月11日11时32分
------题目------
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.'
------正文------

The speaker advises that Rockingham's old town hall should be replaced by a new one because it may help save a considerable money. While it appears reasonable at the first sight, careful scrutiny reveals several flaws in his reasoning that make this suggestion unacceptable.

To begin with, the evidencesevidence为证据义时不可数 cited in the argument are insufficient to prove that the new hall will be money-saving. It only mentioned that the per square foot costing to heat and cool of the new hall is cheaper than that of the old hall, but the exact area scales of the two halls are not given. Deducted from the description in the argument that the new hall is so large that some of its space can be rented out, it is quite possible that the total cost of it to heat and cool will be far more than that of the old one, which may cause contrary result to the author's assumption.

Besides, the author also ignores other important cost in this process. As we all know, it usually costs much to tore down a house and it may cost much more to build a new one. As referred in the argument, the new hall is much larger than the old one, thus it is imaginary they have to spend much money to buy a larger field. Also,to construct the modern house, which is more energy efficient as the speaker described, they still have to pay much to hire a high-quality construction company to do so. Such costs all are unavoidable and should not be neglected by the speaker, especially in considering the economic effect of this project.

Finally, the suggestion could not be hastily adopted lacking of more support from its citizens. In the argument, it is only said that some citizens proposed this plan, which implies some did not. While the town hall is an office building for government, which is paid mainly by the taxes of its citizens, its construction or tearing down should all requires the admission of at least the majority of citizens there. Without gaining more people's support in this plan, the author's suggestion could not be adopted soon.

In sum, the author's advice is not as sound as it stands. To make it more convincing, he needs to do more exact calculation of the project's cost and he should also get the credence of more citizens there.


个人管见：觉得这篇Argument好像立足于批驳观点，而不是批驳论证(how well it is reasoned)。原论述支撑论点的三条理由是small,costly,rent。除了costly，作者似乎没有再涉及其他两方面。我们应该重点立足于逻辑错误……