argument163 jingjing(写得好烂啊)

jingjingtousUID: 2164820

TOPIC：ARGUMENT 163 - 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：526          TIME：60mins          DATE：2006-1-2
Outline:
1 the small volume of the older building is not responsible for the uncomfortable accommodation of  employees. Even if it is, it is not the main reason for razing (historical and aesthetical values)
2 the fact that the new building have more efficient energy-thrift per square does not mean that the whole building would consume less energy.
3 can the revenue increase by renting additional space of the new building? Other bad influences.
In this argument, the arguer recommends to raze Rokingham's century-old town hall and substitute a larger and more energy-efficient one. To support this recommendation the arguer points out that the old hall is too small for employees to work and that the larger, new building would surpass the old one in  the efficiency of per square foot energy cost. Also the arguer assumes that the income of the town will increase by renting the additional space of the new building. This evidence, however, lends scant support to the argument.

A threshold problem with the argument involves that the arguer hastily assumes that the small volume of the old hall is responsible for the uncomfortable accommodation. Yet this might not be the truth. Perhaps it is the terrible working environment, for example, the insufficient water supplication, the dirty washing room, or the unhealthiness air that resulted in the consequence. Even if the foregoing assertion is substantiated, it still might not be the main reason for razing the old hall. The arguer overlooks the historical and aesthetical values of the century-old building. He also neglects other implements possibly improve the circumstance of it, for instance, to clean and decorate its inside and retrofit its appearance. Therefore, the arguer's assumptions are dubious and unreliable.

Second, the argument's conclusion based on the fact that new architecture would be more efficient in energy-thrift is highly unpersuasive. Admittedly, the new hall consumes less per square foot energy compared to the old one, but when it comes to the whole energy consumption of the two buildings, it is entirely possible that the old one exhausts less energy concerning it smaller space. Moreover, the arguer fails to take into account the immense expense of reconstruction. Even if the new building would cut down some costs due to its energy-efficiency, can the additional money compensate the large amount of rebuilding? Besides, the arguer also ignores other inevitable and serious problems that would be caused by the project. For example, the environment pollutions including the uncomfortable noises, dirty air, or other problems that might badly influence the living conditions of local people.

Last but not the least, it appears that the arguer's predication that the local government's revenue would augment because of the renting of the additional space. I rebuke this assertion in three following aspects:(1) whether the new building is large enough to have additional space is open to doubt, perhaps with the rearrangement of the local government, it volume might be inadequate for new employees. (2) Even if the renting would increase the government's income, can it offset the huge cost of the reconstructing project? (3) the arguer fails to consider the unbeneficial impacts on the new working place by renting out some of the space for commercial or entertainment purpose. Common sense informs us that a store or theater cannot exist spontaneously with a local government, it would certainly decrease the efficiency of its employees.

In the final analysis, the argument is replete with suspicious assertions which render it completely unconvincing. To strengthen it, the arguer should informs me that the new building's comparative largeness and energy-efficiency would indisputably lead to the comfortable accommodation and effectiveness of the employees, and that by renting its additional space, the government could compensate its immense expense on the reconstruction. Further, the arguer had better tell me that whether the old building have significant historical and aesthetical values, and whither the rebuilding would bring serious environmental problems.

[ 本帖最后由 jingjingtous 于 2006-1-2 21:53 编辑 ]

yogurt4UID: 198389

谢谢:o

jingjingtousUID: 2164820

谨遵版主教诲，以后不会发在其它论坛上了

gaojiehahaUID: 2149729

前两天没时间，马上帮你看

gaojiehahaUID: 2149729

In this argument, the arguer recommends to raze Rockingham's century-old town hall and substitute(谁代替谁？是后者代替前者。所以这里用被动吧) a larger and more energy-efficient one. To support this recommendation the arguer points out that the old hall is too small for employees to work and that the larger, new building would surpass the old one in the efficiency of per square foot energy cost. Also the arguer assumes that the income of the town will increase by renting the additional space of the new building. This evidence, however, lends scant support to（好词组，lend support to—支持） the argument.

A threshold problem with the argument involves that the arguer hastily assumes that the small volume of the old hall is responsible for the uncomfortable accommodation. Yet this might not be the truth. Perhaps it is the terrible working environment, for example, the insufficient water supplication, the dirty washing room, or the unhealthiness air that resulted in the consequence. Even if the foregoing assertion is substantiated, it still might not be the main reason for razing the old hall. The arguer overlooks the historical and aesthetical values of the century-old building. He also neglects other implements（我认为measures更好） possibly improve the circumstance of it, for instance, to clean and decorate its inside and retrofit（retread） its appearance. Therefore, the arguer's assumptions are dubious and unreliable.

Second, the argument's conclusion based on the fact that new architecture would be more efficient in energy-thrift is highly unpersuasive. Admittedly, the new hall consumes less per square foot energy compared to the old one, but when it comes to the whole energy consumption of the two buildings, it is entirely possible that the old one exhausts less energy concerning it smaller space. Moreover, the arguer fails to take into account the immense expense of reconstruction. Even if the new building would cut down some costs due to its energy-efficiency, can the additional money compensate the large amount of rebuilding? Besides, the arguer also ignores other inevitable and serious problems that would be caused by the project. For example, the environmental pollutions including the uncomfortable noises, dirty air, or other problems that might badly influence the living conditions of local people. （这个地方有点偏。这段论证的是旧房子新房子哪个的花消更大。然后就跳跃到修新房子的不好的方面，跨越的有点大。我的个人看法。你再斟酌看看）
Last but not the least, it appears that the arguer's predication that the local government's revenue would augment because of the renting of the additional space. I rebuke this assertion in three following aspects 1) whether the new building is large enough to have additional space is open to doubt,(这个好像有些牵强。文中已经说了将要把新房子修的更大，满足居民然后有位置出租) perhaps with the rearrangement of the local government, its volume might be inadequate for new employees. (2) Even if the renting would increase the government's income, can it offset the huge cost of the reconstructing project? (3) The arguer fails to consider the unbeneficial impacts on the new working place by renting out some of the space for commercial or entertainment purpose. Common sense informs us that a store or theater cannot exist spontaneously with a local government; it would certainly decrease the efficiency of its employees.

In the final analysis, the argument is replete with suspicious assertions, which render it completely unconvincing. To strengthen it, the arguer should informs me（改成us更好些） that the new building's comparative largeness and energy-efficiency would indisputably lead to the comfortable accommodation and effectiveness of the employees, and that by renting its additional space, the government could compensate its immense expense on the reconstruction. Further, the arguer had better tell me that whether the old building have significant historical and aesthetical values, and whither（whether） the rebuilding would bring serious environmental problems.(结尾总结的不错，挺全面)

Jingjingtous：写的还好啦，虽然有些小错误，但在限时完成的紧张感下写成如此，还不错啦！而且你的用词比我新颖，我很喜欢！

jingjingtousUID: 2164820

谢谢gaojie的拍砖，但是第二段除了写总的花费new hall可能比old hall 高外我实在想不到还可以写点别的什么了，还有，很惭愧，我不是限时完成的，我多花了半个小时:L