argument163 寄托4人组 8月21日作业

meautoUID: 2116250

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.'
1，        拆房盖房装修房开销大
2，        新楼的总面积可能很大
3，        人们不一定租新楼
The arguer concludes that to save a large amount of money, Rockingham's century-old town should be torn down and replaced by a larger, more energy-efficient building. However, this argument is unconvincing in several aspects.

To begin with, whether the replacement will save Rockingham a considerable amount of money remains unknown..  For one thing, to tear down the old hall and build a new one usually asks for a large sum of money for the materials and human resources. Furniture and office appliance for the new building might also cost much. What is more, given that the new building is larger and more energy-efficient, it is highly possible that the expenditure of the replacement will far surpass the current cost, or the potential profits that the new building will bring in the coming years. If it were so, the new building would not save Rockingham much money as the speaker asserts.

Even granted that building and furnishing the new building would be a great deal, the proposed building may claim a heating and cooling fee not necessarily cheaper than that of the current one. Although compared to the old hall the new building actually cost less per square foot to heat and cool, the overall charge may still exceed the fees right now, since the new building are much larger than the old hall in squares. Without considering the specific area of the new building, the arguer cannot convince us that it would save a lot of money on heating and cooling.

Moreover, the arguer unfairly assumes that to generate income people in Rockham could rent out some of the space in the new building. As the argument says, however, the old hall is too small to accommodate all the employees in the town. So the new one may be just adequate to meet the current demand, and thus no more space could be spared for rent. Assuming it does, possible is that no people would rent the new building, for maybe many cheaper, comfortable houses meanwhile are available for renting in the town. Given either of the scenarios, however, the new building would fail to generate profits as the arguer asserts.

In conclusion, this argument is ungrounded in several ways. To convince us that the replacement of the old hall is justifiable, the arguer must take the building and furnishing expense, as well as the overall fees for heating and cooling, into consideration.