argument163 我们的九月小组-----第八次作业

maggie-leeUID: 2220892

In the editorial of the local newspaper in Rockingham, the author recommends that the Rockingham's antiquated town hall should be pushed over and replaced by a newly-established building of more energy-efficiency. In order to make the claim more convincing and acceptable, the author cites the deficiencies of the old town hall, such as small and inadequate space, energy-consuming, meanwhile indicates the superiority of the designed new building. In addition, the author develops the assumption that extra revenue might be produced due to the new town hall.

To begin with, the author fails to provide any evidence to convince us that the current town hall is so small that it cannot accommodate the government employees suitably. To substantiate the claim, the author has to present concrete information concerning the total number of staff in this building, how the space is utilized, as well as the points of view of the employees. Only based on the detailed relevant information, can the claim be reached.

Secondly, a critical assumption that more energy might be saved and cost might be reduced significantly is unwarranted. Although the author cites the fact that the cost for heating and cooling the building per square foot is less for the new town hall, he or she fails to mention how large the new building is exactly. Then it is totally possible that the new building is considerably larger compared with the old one, then the total energy consumed by the new town hall far exceeds that of the old one, because that the total consuming of energy due to enlarged space in the new hall might outweigh significantly the aggregate saved energy per square foot. Another problem is that the author fails to analyze the real cause for energy-inefficiency in the old town hall, therefore whether the new building will solve the problem is open to doubt.

In addition, the author fails to take into account the other values of the century-old town hall, such as historic value, artistic value. It is completely possible that the century-old town hall is a famous historic architecture, which is of great significance in the history. Therefore the building might attract considerable tourists for sightseeing which can bring extra income if the sightseeing is charged. Perhaps, the old town hall is of important value in architecture, which is particularly worthy. Then once the building is destroyed, it will disappear forever.

In addition, the author unfairly assumes that extra income could be brought by the new town hall. No evidence is provided to show that there are some people or institutions that are willing to rent the extra space. It is probably due to that the rent is expensive, or the location is not convenient.

In summary, some of the assumptions are groundless which significantly undermine the credibility of the analysis. In addition, the author fails to rule out some vital possibility. To strengthen the analysis, the author has to provide more persuasive evidence and reasoning in a logical and thorough way.