argument163

hlzhang431UID: 2297648

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."

Merely based on the low capacity and expensive heating and cooling expenses of the old town hall, the author of this editorial section of the local newspaper in Rockingham (R) recommends that for the purpose of saving a considerable amount of money, R's century-old town hall should be torn down and replaced by the larger and more energy-efficient building that some citizens have proposed. Close scrutiny of his or her inference reveals that it suffers from many logical fallacies and thus is unconvincing.

To begin with, the arguer overlooks the possibility that the total expense for cooling and heating the new build might exceed or equal to that of the old one. The reason is that the total cost for cooling and heating is a function of both the average square foot cost and the overall area of the building. Consequently, even if the new building costs less per square to heat and cool than the old one, without provide specific statistics regarding the areas of the two buildings, it is entirely possible that the new building might cost more than the old one. For instance, if the average square cost for heating and cooling of the new building and the old one are $1.5 and $2 respectively and the areas the two are 1000 and 500 square foot each, then it is clear that the total expense of the new, larger building are more than that of the old one. Simply put, without providing enough information of the two building, it is unreasonable for the author to conclude that the new building cost less for heating and cooling than the old one.

Secondly, even if the new building does cost less for heating and cooling, the arguer still fails to take into consideration that additional space of the new building might not be successfully rent out. Perhaps local residents in R city all have enough spaces and there is no need for them to rent extra houses. If it were not the case, then perhaps the renting fee of this new building is much more than that of other house rented, and in order to save money, people might unwilling to choose this new building. If the renting fee were the same to or lower than the average, people might still hesitate to rent this new building for the simple reason that the building is used as the office of government officials then it might be improper for average people to live in such building. All in all, due to the possibilities mentioned above, it might render the renting of the additional space of the new building almost impossible.

Finally and most importantly, the author ignores several most extremely important factors in building such a new, larger building. The first has to do with whether the town has enough funds available. If it were not, then it might be unreasonable to build such a building for the simple reason that the town of R might suffer an economical crisis. Additionally, even if the town had enough funds, it might be much wiser to spend it on some more urgent problems such as hunger, murder, unemployment, etc. Moreover, if the plan for this building could be reasonably justified, the arguer still fails to take into account office places that government officials use during the construction of the new building. In sum, the arguer does not give enough consideration of the building.

In a word, the arguer's inference lacks of credibility as it stands for the simple reason that he or she has overlooked or chosen to ignore many aspects of his or her argument. To further substantiate it, more information should be provided regarding the costs of such a building and some heating or cooling costs of the old one as well as the new one.



(2003-6-28 18:23:02)

[ 本帖最后由 hlzhang431 于 2007-6-29 18:06 编辑 ]