Argument163 [Victors小组]c0053 第十二周作业

c0053UID: 2285120

题目：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."
字数：416          用时：上午 12:30:00          日期：2007-6-26

In this argument, the arguer recommends that Rockingham's century-old town be torn down and replaced by the larger and more energy-efficient building. To justify his claim, the arguer suggests that the old town hall is too small to comfortably accommodate the number of people who are employed by the town, and that it is costly to heat the old hall in winter and cool it in summer. This argument is vulnerable in several aspects.

The major problem with this argument is the unwarranted assumption that a new building will cost less and earn more money. Even though the new building will be more energy-efficient, as the arguer asserts, it is much larger than the old one, therefore, the overall cost may be higher than before. Further, the arguer fails to provide any evidence that the new hall can rent out some of the space. Maybe there are many empty buildings in this area, or people do not need to rent, thus the new building will not rent out and generating income. The larger space created by the new building may be useless and form a new burden for the town.

Another problem that undermines the argument is that a larger, more energy-efficient building will not be necessary. Although the old town hall is not large enough to accommodate the whole employed population of the town, it is quite possible that there is no need to do this. Maybe a meeting will only invite some delegates of every enterprise, or there may be other places, say, the town square to accommodate so many people. Additionally, the energy problem of the old building can be solved by changing its air conditioning machines. Thus, there aren't enough reasons that we must build a new town hall.

Last but not least, the arguer fails to take into account several negative factors by tearing down the old building. Maybe the century-old town hall has its unique cultural value and historical importance. It may also attract lots of visitors thus bring income to the town. Without evaluating its value, arbitrarily tearing the town hall down is an unwise decision.

In conclusion, this argument is not persuasive as it stands. Before we accept the conclusion, the arguer must present more facts to prove that a new building will surely reduce the costs and increase the income. To solidify the argument, the arguer would have to evaluating the values of old town hall first, and building a new one's advantages will outweigh its disadvantages.