argument163 FLY AW小组第48次作业（478字）

夜一UID: 2130338

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：39分19秒     478 words
从2006年6月16日13时16分到2006年6月16日13时39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 arguer recommends replace Rockingham's century-old town hall with a larger and more energy efficient building, in order to save a considerable amount of money. To support this conclusion, the arguer illustrates some disadvantages of the old hall as well as some advantages of the new building. However, neither the former nor the latter can powerfully back up the recommendation.

First of all, it is unverified to claim that the new building can save a significant amount of money. On one hand, it is unverified to announce that the new building costs less energy than the old hall. Although the more energy efficient new building costs less per square foot to heat and cool, it is also much larger than the old hall. As a result, when considering the cost of per square foot and the entire area of the construction together, the new building may requires more energy totally. On the other hand, the larger new building may cost much more money in maintaining, cleaning, and security. Hence, it is unsubstantiated to assert that the operating cost of the new building is less than that of the old hall.

Besides, it is unwise to expect any income by renting out some of the space in the new building. Whether the new building will have spare rooms to carry out such principles remains a question completely. It is unreasonable to assume that the new building is large enough to satisfy the original employees. Therefore, without detailed description of the new building and accurate prediction of the needs of employees, it is unwise to believe the possibility that there will be spare rooms to be rent out and generate extra profits.

Furthermore, even if the new building can save a remarkable amount of expense as well as generate extra profits, it is unreasonable to tear down the old hall. According to the arguer, the hall is over one hundred years old. Such an old hall may have considerable history value. While its construction may represent the characteristic contemporary building patterns, its declarations may demonstrate the respectable contemporary artistic ideas. Such a hall with high history value can serve as perfect tourism resources. As the small old hall cannot satisfy the employees, Rockingham can simply build a new building elsewhere and develop tourism with the old hall. Tearing down such a century-old hall, the town will lose possession with remarkable history value and a considerable amount of tourism income.

In conclusion, while neither the possibility of the new building to save energy expenses nor the expectation to rent out spare rooms is convincing enough to be accepted by others, the arguer unreasonably suggests tear down the valuable century-old hall. Without evaluating the advantages of the new building and the profits of the old hall, it is unwise for the arguer to state such recommendation.