argument163 [spring小组] 第7次作业

shanxinhpUID: 2311857

argument 163 [spring小组] 第7次作业

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:449

In this argument, the arguer recommends that Rocking’s century-old town hall should be torn down and replaced by the larger and more energy-efficient building to save considerable amount of money spend on it every year. This recommendation is based on the observation that some citizen proposed that the old town hall is no proper to accommodate the number of employees as well as considerable consume. In several aspects, however, the evidence lends little credible support for argument.

A threshold assumption upon which the recommendation relies is that the new building will decline the total consume. However, there are fundamental different aspects. It is true that modern building contain new technology may lead to save expenditure, but there exist many problems. If the increase area consume is more than the total saving by using new device we can predict the expenditure spend on it will soar instead of decline. What is more, the arguer does not provide any information indicate how much the consume one year. Although the sum number is larger even drastically, its average level is still lower than the average level of the city. Without accounting such possible facts we cannot predict the expenditure will decline is unreasonable.

Secondly, the arguer suggested that the hall is uncomfortable to work in for people who are employed by the town is unreasonable, for there is no grumble from them. On the other hand, we cannot predict who proposed such statement, recommendation replace this hall with a new one. It is entirely possible that some company want to make fortune by building new architecture, for this place in the palm locale. Or, to some extent, a collector was attracted by the architecture and wants to take it by oneself, so disseminated such statement. Therefore, we cannot make a headlong decision before any investigate is make.

Last but not least, we cannot tear down this hall because this behavior is an unpolitic way even committee to some extent, on the aspect of protecting historical relic, for our culture and descendant. Due to his long history, from which we can discovery drastic change during the pasting time, for he witness the rapid developing in the past time. Maybe Nation Fathers found the “Declaration of independence” in this building two hundreds years ago. In short, we would be guilty after tear down the hall.

In conclusion, the argument is unpersuasive as it stands, to strengthen it the argument’s proponent must provide evidence that other factors affecting the expenditure .What is more the leader should make a wide and deep thought on the ancient objects, however before any final decision are made the authority should evaluate all possible alternatives cases to avoid doing anything wrong.

liyue24UID: 2350787

In this argument, the arguer recommends that Rocking’s century-old town hall should be torn down and replaced by the[a是否更好一些？] larger and more energy-efficient building to save considerable amount of money spending on it every year. This recommendation is based on the observation that some citizen proposed that the old town hall is no proper to accommodate the number of employees as well as considerable consume. In several aspects, however, the evidence lends little credible support for argument.

A threshold assumption upon which the recommendation relies [on] is that the new building will decline the total consume. However, there are fundamental different aspects. It is true that modern building contain new technology may lead to save expenditure, but there exists many [other] problems. If the increase area consume[?没懂，这个是啥消费？] is more than the total saving by using new device , we can predict the expenditure spend on it[the building，能说清楚的地方，就说清楚好了，用代词其实不甚明智，会让人摸不着头脑，或是理解错，那就不好了。] will soar instead of decline. What is more, the arguer does not provide any information [to吧。有没有provide sth do这种用法我不知道...sorry] indicate how much the consume one year.[and?接着说下去呀……没有提供这个导致了怎样？] Although the sum number is larger even drastically, its average level is still lower than the average level of the city.[sorry，这句又没懂。还是，sum number是什么的number？its又是代的啥？为啥要和城市平均水平比？] Without accounting such possible facts we cannot predict the expenditure will decline is unreasonable.

这一段是说费用的问题。原文说盖新楼可以节省取暖制冷的费用，因为更节能设计。但是上面这段却似乎只是关注于费用，而且还牵扯到别的，比如城市平均水平。而且，原文说的是制冷费用，似乎并未提到别的费用。如果只是为了攻击这一点，是否可以这么说：取暖制冷费用可以节省，但是要考虑拆楼盖楼的费用也要算进去。这样以来就不划算了。个人觉得，似乎没必要和什么城市平均水平比。毕竟原来就说的只是新楼旧楼的问题，还是不要再扩大化了吧？

Secondly, the arguer suggested[arguer's suggestion] that the hall is uncomfortable to work in for people who are employed by the town is unreasonable, for there is no grumble from them[the employees]. On the other hand,[这么快就转了...前面的问题才说了一句而已呀...] we cannot predict who proposed such statement, recommendation replace this hall with a new one.[There's no clue about this whole replace-a-new-building suggestion comes from.] It is entirely possible that some company want to make fortune by building new architecture, for this place [is？] in the palm locale[??]. Or, to some extent, a collector was attracted by the architecture and wants to take it by oneself[这句话两个谓语，一个was一个wants，两种时态，是否前面用is更好？此外，take it by oneself的说法，表示占有吗？我差点理解为这个collector想自己一个人把这个hall给拆了....汗...  :) ], so [he] disseminated such statement. Therefore, we cannot make a headlong decision before any investigate is make[investigations are done].

首先，原来是说地方小，并不是说不舒适。这个稍微注意一下：原来是说too small to的，重点在small。但是本段从开始的这个舒适与否，最后谈到为啥要拆这个building了。是不是有点跑题了呢？或是，一段里面说两个方面，是否有点乱呢？而且，列举的一些他因也是有点牵强的。特别是collector的那个……呵呵……

Last but not least, we cannot tear down this hall because this behavior is an unpolitic way even committee to some extent[??没懂...啥committee？], on the aspect of protecting historical relic, for our culture and descendant. Due to his long history, from which we can discovery drastic changes during the pasting[past本身就是形容词了] time, for he witness the rapid developing in the past time. Maybe Nation Fathers found the “Declaration of independence” in this building two hundreds years ago. In short, we would be guilty after tear down the hall.

不能拆hall的其他原因——历史见证物。我不得不说这个恐怕还是上面一段话的延伸，而且很多内容和原文的关系已经不是很紧密了。

In conclusion, the argument is unpersuasive as it stands. To strengthen it the argument’s proponent must provide evidence that other factors affecting the expenditure .What is more, the leader should make a wide and deep thought on the ancient objects, however before any final decision are made the authority should evaluate all possible alternatives cases to avoid doing anything wrong.



题目的主要意思是拆了原来的楼盖新的，原因有如下：
1）旧的地方小，不够用了；2）新的比旧的节能，节省取暖制冷费用；3）新楼可以出租部分，赚外快；
要讨论的也是这些为啥不能作为拆楼的原因。而不是说，为什么不能拆楼。Argument是要根据话题谈论的。并不是说不能举他因，但是举他因是有目的的，是为了说明原来的证据和理由不充分。所以，对于题目的理解是否可以再多想想？

段首句要能清楚表明自己意思，后面整段都要针对这一点来说，而不是想到那儿说到哪儿，逻辑性不强。
此外，几段之间的逻辑关系，对每个问题的详细分析，都略显单薄，没有对某一点错误的深入讨论，很多时候也只是说了一下一句带过了。这样恐怕分数不会太高。

语言运用上也要多注意。前面写的还好，但是后面不知道为啥就有点乱了。先学会用简单的语言把自己的意思表达清楚，让人一看就能明白，这个是第一步要做的。

多多加油～～