ARGUMENT164 飞跃小组disyoo 额外作业 有拍必回 谢谢救赎

disyooUID: 2223964

TOPIC: ARGUMENT164 - Claitown University needs both affordable housing for its students and a way to fund the building of such housing. The best solution to this problem is to commission a famous architect known for experimental and futuristic buildings. It is common knowledge that tourists are willing to pay money to tour some of the architect's buildings, so it can be expected that tourists will want to visit this new building. The income from the fees charged to tourists will soon cover the building costs. Furthermore, such a building will attract new students as well as donations from alumni. And even though such a building will be much larger than our current need for student housing, part of the building can be used as office space.
WORDS: 390          TIME: 0:30:00          DATE: 2007-2-24

In this memo, the author concludes that to solue the problem of that Claitown University (CU) needs both affordable housing for its students and a way to fund the building of such housing, the CU have to commission a famous architect known for experimental and futuristic buildings. To support the conclusion, the author presents that the tourists will want to visit this new buildings because they are willing to pay money to tour some of the architect's buildings, so that the income from the fees charged to tourists will soon cover the building costs. The author also cites that such a building will be large enough to new students live and office space. However, this argument relise on a serise of unbelivable stands, and is therefore unsubstantiated assumptions.

First, the author attribute that the tours are willing to visit the new buildings in CU to they are willing to pay money to tour some of the architece's buildings. There is a failture of reason relationship between them. The builidings which are enjoyed by  the tours are maybe well known and have been built for more than 100 years, the tours are not willing to pay money to vist a building which is newly built in a unversity. So it may be impossible that the new architect's builiding will charm the tours.

Second, even though such building are intested by tours, the author has no evidence to proof that the income from the fees charged to tourists will soon cover the building costs. It will cost much to build a builiding, but the fees charged to tourists are little, and so if the CU want to cover the building costs, it will take at least 10 years. So it is unbelivable to get the money back by the income of fees charged to tourists soon, unless the author has more information about the amount money of both the cost and the income.

In sum, the author cannot strongly support his conclusion in the argument, to strengthen the argument, the author should presrnt more evidence that the tours are willing to visit the archiect's building of CU. The author also should cite more information of the cost of money and the income from the fees charged to tourists, and it will be more creditable that the costs will soon be got back.