Argument163 [Victors小组]第10次作业 by gyyx

gyyxUID: 2290150

A163：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."

2007-06-30

In my opinion, the author asserts, that it should build an energy-efficient building to take the place of the century-old town hall, due to reduce the cost of Rockingham, is not a wise recommendation, although the old hall is more costly in warm and cool, and smaller than the concerned new building, or even they could rent out the new one to generating income.

First, the author assumes that it is an advisable and desirable recommendation that build a new building to substitute for the century-old hall, as it will cost less money. The author did not provide any evidence to demonstrate that building a new large building will take less money than holding the old one. Perhaps it will take more money to tear down the old hall and build the new building, or perhaps, the building will be more costly in maintaining than the old one. The author states that the new building would be more energy-efficient, costing less per square foot to heat and cool than the old hall, however, the new building is also larger than the old one, so it is highly possible that the total expense of maintaining the new building is, if not more, as much as the old one’s. Lacking of this information makes the recommendation remains the author’s own wishful thinking.
Additionally, the author ignore some essential factors that play more crucial role in saving the cost of Rockingham, in which the cost of the town hall is only a small amount and could not influence the total, as the author did not illustrate the cost constitution and we are lack of information that how much percent the cost of hall owns. Perhaps the government has employed more people than needed, and the cost of these people account for the cost of Rockingham mostly, so maybe a redundancy is more proper. Furthermore, as a century-old hall, the hall maybe has much more value in art and architect, which the new building could not substitute, is an indispensable factors should be take into account to the author’s recommendation when he considers the new building’s plan. Without considering these factors, the author could not convince me relying on the mere evidence he provides.

Finally, the author predicts that it will increase the income for Rockingham by the way of renting out some space of the new building without any evidence. If the new building locates in the centre of the town or if there’s some cooperation that has show the interest in it, there maybe some possibility for income to increase. But, as a building for government to handle office business, it should be a special place, and could not be disturbed by other business, that’s a point I could not agree with the author.

To summarize, the author bases his recommendation on assumptions and to evaluate this argument, the author should provide more evidence about the constitution of the cost of the cost of Rockingham, the budget of the new building, and consider more deeply and broadly in making any decision.