ARGUE164 飞跃 dreams 第二次作业

shallinZUID: 2449645

ARGUE164 飞跃 dreams 第二次作业


164.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.

In this argument, the author recommends that Claitown University should commission a famous architect who is known for experimental and futuristic buildings build a new dormitory. To support this conclusion the author point out that the tourists are willing to tour some of the architect’s buildings, such a build will attract new students to live and study, and part of the building can be used as office space. We may find this argument is unconvincing for several reasons

Firstly, the author assuming that a well-known architect’s some buildings attracted some tourists and reaped income form tourists, tourists are willing to pay money to tour a new student dormitory. However, the author provides no evidence which could prove his view. It is equally possible that analogous architectures built in scenic spot, with especially purpose for attracting tourists, thus such buildings as louvre museum building, water tubes in Beijing and so on. All these architectures are built for attracting the tourist. Nevertheless, a new dormitory is not only in out of scenic spot, but also doesn’t attract tourists. It is entirely possible that tourists aren’t willing to tour a student dormitory.

Secondly, the author ignores a important facet whether Claitown University has sufficiently money commission a famous architect. Due to such a architect, Claitown University has difficulty in inviting he or she and expends tremendously. The additional fee that pay builder for building the buildings and the design fee that pay architecture for design experimental and futuristic buildings are unable to anticipate.

Thirdly, the arguer wrongly consider future live-in students’ attitude. The arguer deems this experimental and futuristic building will attract many students that are willing to study and live in the Claitown University. However, if this dormitory may attract the tourists to tour this building, the students who will live in this dormitory aren’t willing to study and live here. Because every people hope that they have themselves private space. Nobody would like to live in the place that will be visited daily.

Finally, the arguer assumes that building will attract donations from alumni. It is likely that the situation is opposite. It commission a expensive architecture build a new dormitory. This project may cause the alumni more angry, thus they will reject contribute money to build this student dormitory.

To sum up, this recommendation lack practicability, the arguer has overlooked or chosen to ignore many aspects of his conclusion. To strengthen the recommendation, the author should provide more evidence, such as building expend, enrollment, bankroll.

看了上篇文章后,严重吸取教训,不知道有没有变好些呢??有什么意见尽管提出出来,非常欢迎啊.反正我们组建这个组就是为了相互学习嘛!!!    欢迎砸转啊

[ 本帖最后由 shallinZ 于 2008-1-30 16:26 编辑 ]