argument163 市政厅 火拼Arg 2 欢迎互拍~~BOW

dicmiUID: 183392

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: 501              TIME: 0:30:00          DATE: 2006-8-13

A threshold fallacy with this argument is that it is hasty and risky to tore down the century-old town hall without considering its potential value as a historical architecture. As the author mentions, this old town hall has already undergone nearly one century, we have reasons to believe that the value of old building goes beyond the original function as a office building. Rather, possibly, it has become an emblem of this town representing the century-long history. Or possibly, there are many visitors in and out of this town going to the town hall for a visit. In this case, tearing down the old town hall will be surely a great loss to citizens of Rockingham. Therefore, unless the author gives us more substantial evidence to prove that the old town hall is of no value any longer, we cannot be convinced that tearing down it will be a good decision acceptable by citizen in Rockingham.

Additionally, even if the old building needs to be tore down, the author fails to substantiate that building a new town hall is the best choice to save money. Firstly, the author cites that the new town hall will cost less per square foot to heat and cool. However, the author seems to neglect that larger area is very likely to offset the less cost to heat or cool, in that the total cost should be a function of cost per square and total area. Failing to conduct a comprehensive calculation, it is presumptuous to assert heat and cool new town hall will be less then old one. Secondly, it is obvious that building a new town hall also requires a myriad of money. Nevertheless, the author again does not provide the concrete figures how much it will cost. In this sense, it is entirely possible that building a new town hall needs quite a lot, and subsequently undermines supposed goal to save money. Hence, from these two points of view, any of these scenarios, if true, may render the suggestion of a new town hall economically unsound and unpersuasive.

Moreover, granted that the new building is finally approved, no strong evidence is provided to prove the feasibility to rent out some of the spaces in it. For one thing, we are not informed that there anyone who is eager to rent an office. Also, conceding someone is looking for a rent office, without inferring the rent price of office in town hall, it is unwarranted that the price for rent is favorable for customers.. For another, common sense informs us that a town hall is an office building in which many government officers do their jobs. Actually, it is not convenient for renting room to other organizations or companies especially when they are not governmental department. In this light, hence, the only time the author can assert it is feasible to rent some space out, is after an thorough research about people's desires and intents; otherwise, the assertion is somewhat problematic.

helluinUID: 2377112

天啊 五体投地啊 这篇绝对六分了 什么开头结尾 全部要 也肯定是满分

tracywlzUID: 2522388

请不要顶起老贴。谢谢。

helluinUID: 2377112

仔细看还是有一些用词不当的错误 比如 presumptuous 我想斑竹应该是想用 baseless/unfounded 一类的词吧