argument163 拆旧楼，盖新楼，进入临战状态，拍必回！

xmbjowlUID: 2182375

TOPIC: 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."
WORDS: 531          TIME: 上午 12:40:47          DATE: 2006-7-16

In this editorial, the author claims that more energy-efficient building should be constructed in order to replace the old town hall. To support this claim, the applicant points out several disadvantages of the town hall, in the limited content as well as the high expense. He also mentions the merits of the new building, such as more energy efficient, the lower cost, and the potential profits in renting. Careful examination of this supporting evidence, however, reveals that it lends little credible support to the applicant's claim.

To begin with, the assertion that the old building should be torn down is unconvincing. The author fails to provide the evidence that the current accommodation available in the building is not enough, as well as the detailed information regarding the energy consumption of the old building. Even assuming that the current condition regarding the above respects, we might resort to other means to address the problems as well, for example, replacing the old hearing facilities with more energy-efficient building, downsizing the employment, etc. Also, only the energy consumption of the heating and cooling facilities cannot reflect the overall usage of the energy in the building. As for the usage, it also involves other respects such as lighting, functioning the basic machine, etc. Without considering all the possible ways of using energy, the information in the argument can only amount to unsubstantiated result.

The author claims that lower cost would be induced because of more energy efficient costing less per square foot to hear and cool, compared to the old hall. However, the author fails to consider the total mass of the new building, which is obviously larger than the old one. If so, the saved part of the cost would be offset by the increased area. Even worse, the total cost may increase consequently. Consider this: the evidence mentioned in the argument is unsounded, which cannot convince me.

Granted the lower cost regarding the new building, the would-be profit from renting out some rooms of the building is unwarranted as it stands. After all, the author fails to provide evidence that there do have sufficient needs from the crowds of people who are strongly willing to renting some rooms of the new building. Besides, whether there would be large amount of investment in the town is in doubt. If not, it seems that the needs toward the renting are gloomy. Given the unwarranted needs, the potential profits from renting is dubious. Also, whether the rooms of building would be suitable for living is open to doubt, since the building is constructed for office working, not for everyday living. Thus, the feasibility of the proposal is also unverified.

In sum, the author's argument is not persuasive. To bolster it he must provide clearer evidence that   new building is truly more economical. Such evidence include the full comparison between the total energy used in the two buildings; the data of the overall usage of the energy of the current building; and the statistics showing that a significant number of the employees in the building. To better assess the recommendation, the needs of renting should be further investigated, in an attempt to substantiate the would-be profits.

xmbjowlUID: 2182375

up

xmbjowlUID: 2182375

up!

xmbjowlUID: 2182375

upupup