查看: 1572|回复: 3

[a习作temp] ARGUMENT164[FF小组] by alpsky（有拍必回，欢迎互改） [复制链接]

Rank: 2

声望: 0
寄托币: 208
注册时间: 2007-12-12
精华: 0
帖子: 5

发表于 2008-11-25 11:53:57 |显示全部楼层

征友互改，共同进步

题目：ARGUMENT164- Claitown University needs both affordable housingfor its students and a way to fund the building of such housing. The bestsolution to this problem is to commission a famous architect known forexperimental and futuristic buildings. It is common knowledge that tourists arewilling to pay money to tour some of the architect's buildings, so it can beexpected that tourists will want to visit this new building. The income fromthe fees charged to tourists will soon cover the building costs. Furthermore,such a building will attract new students as well as donations from alumni. Andeven though such a building will be much larger than our current need forstudent housing, part of the building can be used as office space.
字数：389 用时：0:30:36 日期：2008-11-25

In this argument, the arguer recommendsthat commissioning a famous architectect known for experimental and futuristicbuildings is the best solution to the problem Claitown Universityis facing. To support this claim, the arguer cites many advantages of thissolution. As it stands, the argument suffers from several critical flaws asfollows.

First of all, the arguer rests on anunfounded assumption that the fees from the tourists will soon cover the buildingcosts. Firstly, there is no evidence showing that each building by a famousarchitect known for experimental and futuristic buildings is charming enough toattract tourists to pay for the entrance fee. It is highly possible that peopleare not interested to the housing for students. Furthermore, we do not knowwhether the students are willing to be interrupted by so many tourists. Fromthe two aspects, we can say that the assumption is unwarranted.

In addition, there is no evidence showingthat such a building will surely attract new students as well as donations fromalumni. As we know students always would rather live a comfortable andconvenient apartment then a experimental and futuristic building. Thus maybesuch a building will lose many students who want to study in Claitown University.In the same way, alumni may be do not like this building either. And even ifthey like it, it cannot be the decisive reason to donate.

Finally, even assuming that such a buildingwill attract new students, enough fees from tourists and donations from alumni,it does not follow that this building is the best solution to the problems anddoes not have any disadvantages. For example, the arguer reminds that thebuilding has much spare space which can be used as office space. Actually it isthe common sense that told us that as the differences between the function ofhousing and that of office, the space are different too. So it is highlypossible that it will be a waste of money and surely not reasonable.

To sum up, we can safely conclude that theargument has several patent flaws. To make it logically acceptable, the arguershould provide more concrete evidence showing that the necessary to commissiona famous architect. To evaluate the argument, we need to know more concerningthe solution to solve the spare space in this building.