Argument163 [Victors小组]第十二次作业

乳虎UID: 2251211

163The 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."

提纲：1单位面积取暖和降温的成本低不等于总成本低。
      2作者忽略了拆旧建筑和尖新建筑的成本。
      3作者忽略了旧市政大厅的历史价值。

In this statement, the author recommends Rockingham build a new town hall to replace the old one. In order to support his or her recommendation, the author points out that the old town is too small and not energy-efficient. Furthermore, he or she notes that by renting some of the space in the new building, Rockingham can create income. On the surface, the recommendation seems plausible, but close scrutiny reveals that it involves some serious logical flaws.

In the first place, the fact that it will cost less per square foot to heat or cool the town hall than to heat or cool the old one can not ensure that it is less costly to heat or cool the new town hall than to heat or cool the old one. The cost to heat or call a hall equals the arithmetic product of average cost to heat per square foot and the square of the hall. If the arithmetic peoduct is constant even larger, even if the cost to heat the per square foot of the hall is less, it is more costly to heat the new hall than to heat the old one.

In the second place, the arguer falsely implies that because Rockingham can earn money by renting some of the space in the new building, building a new town hall is economical. Whether it is economical to build a new town hall is the function of cost and revenue. Commonsense informs us that it is costly both to build a new and to torn down an old one. It is entirely possible that the revenue of renting some space of the new building is trifle compared to the large cost. In that case, it is not economical to replace the old town hall with a new one.

The last but not the least, the arguer ignores the historical significance of century-old town hall. Because the build has erected for centuries, it reflects the history, maybe there used to be many historical cases taking place in it. Maybe some celebrity used to give a speech which has long-lasting value. For that matter, due to the old building’s historical significance, even if it is economical to replace it with a new build, it should be preserved. Maybe the best way is to build a new building in other place while conserve the century-old one rather than torn down it.

In conclusion, the arguer makes a series of logical flaws which makes his or her recommendation not tenable as it stands. In order to consolidate it, the arguer should compare the total cost to heat or cool the new town hall with the cost to heat or cool the old one. In addition, the author should tell whether it is economical to replace the old building with a new one. At last, the arguer should pay enough attention to the historical value of the century-old town hall.