argumen164【FF小组】 by duyuan3377 第11次模考

duyuan3377UID: 2415765

TOPIC: ARGUMENT164 - 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.
WORDS: 471          TIME: 00:29:34          DATE: 2008-12-18 11:11:41

In the argument, the arguer draws a conclusion that Claitown University should commission a famous architect known for experimental and futuristic buildings. The argument is mainly based the common knowledge that tourists are willing to pay money to tour some of the architect's buildings. However, although the argument sounds quite reasonable at first thought, yet a series of logical flaws may seriously undermine the argument.

First of all, the arguer unfairly assume that tourists will want to visit this new building at the basis of a common knowledge. However, there is no guarantee that this is the case, nor does the arguer provide any evidence to substantiate the assumption. There are many other factors which should be taken into consideration. It is entirely possible that Claitown University might be located in a remote area. If so, few people would like to visit it just because of the experimental and futuristic buildings. Or perhaps, people might not accept the style of the architecture the university commissions. Without considering and ruling out other possibilities, the arguer cannot convince me to accept his conclusion.

In addition, even though a lot of tourists really want to visit this new building, it does not prove that the building costs will be covered soon from the fees charged to tourists. The arguer fails to provide any information about the expense of this experimental and futuristic building. It is highly possible that this kind of building might need the most expensive building material and that the famous architect might be highly paid. If so, whether the huge costs could be covered soon is questionable. Let alone that situation that few tourists would like to visit it.

Furthermore, the arguer also groundlessly assumes that this building will also attract new students as well as donations, ont only tourists. What is the first factor the student focus on to choose university? Only student housing? In fact, there are many other factors for students to choose university, such as the high level of academics, the prestige of professors, the geographic location and so on. As for donations from alumni, the arguer provides no evidence to support this point at all.

Last but not least, using part of student housing building as office space is problematic. A lot of faculties might be doing office in the student housing building, which might influence the quality of sleeping and activity. This measure might also undermine the students spiritual state to focus on their study.

In sum, the argument lacks credibility because the evidence cited in the analysis does not lend strong support to what the arguer maintains. To solidify the argument, the arguer would have to make sure that this measure really could attract tourists, students and alumni all and to ask for students' advice whether using part of student housing building is proper.