argument163 第一次贴!大家都来帮我看看

meixisaraUID: 2119317

In this argument, the arguer asserts that 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 so as to save money. This recommendation is based on the assumptions that the old town hall is too small to comfortably accommodate the employees, that the money spent on heating the old hall in winter and cooling it in summer is indeed a luxury, that the income generated from the rent-out space in the new building will be helpful. Logically studied, this argument suffers from several critical feet in the clays.
One major problem in absence of legitimacy is that the arguer fails to convince us that the act that the old town hall should be torn down would definitely save money. Although the arguer states that the old town hall is too small to comfortably accommodate the employees, it cannot be the compulsory cause to justify that the old town hall should be torn down. Actually, the government could enlarge the area in the old town hall to compensate this deficiency. Furthermore, the arguer only claims that the costing per square foot in the new building is less than the ordinary hall. But due to the much bigger overall size of the new building, it is totally possible that the overall money expend on it would be no less than the former one. Besides, the arguer does mention the extra income generated from the rent-out space in the new building, however it is common sense that to build a new building would need a large sum of money which is likely to far exceed the money economized. Thus, based on the slim information above, we can never evaluate the balance between the actual costs of these two actions.
Another point worth considering is the historical and artistic value the old hall has that may possibly outweigh the economic expenses. In fact, owing to its long history, the old town hall may be a symbol of this city for which tourists were attracted here. The citizens might be proud of it and its historical significance. Hence, if the government adopts the advice proposed by some citizens who may be benefit from it to reconstruct the hall, it will possibly make the majority of its citizens opposed and disappoint the tourists who are devoted to the economy of the tourism. Therefore, the government should consider the overall situation before taking any actions.
To sum up, the argument is poorly supported. To strengthen it, the arguer should further investigate the expense spent on these acts and judge other aspects such as historical value and the touristy value to make the final conclusion.

[ Last edited by staralways on 2005-7-23 at 15:42 ]

LeonS.KennedyUID: 194492

贴的时候先把题目打在上面,然后再写正文

LeonS.KennedyUID: 194492

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."



In this argument, the arguer asserts that 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 so as to save money. This recommendation is based on the assumptions that the old town hall is too small to comfortably accommodate the employees, that the money spent on heating the old hall in winter and cooling it in summer is indeed a luxury, that the income generated from the rent-out space in the new building will be helpful. Logically studied, this argument suffers from several critical feet in the clays.刚开始可以按照模板写，慢慢要有一套自己的模板

One major problem in absence of legitimacy is that the arguer fails to convince us that the act that the old town hall should be torn down would definitely save money. Although the arguer states that the old town hall is too small to comfortably accommodate the employees, it cannot be the compulsory cause to justify that the old town hall should be torn down. Actually, the government could enlarge the area in the old town hall to compensate this deficiency. Furthermore, the arguer only claims that the costing per square foot in the new building is less than the ordinary hall. But due to the much bigger overall size of the new building, it is totally possible that the overall money expend on it would be no less than the former one. Besides, the arguer does mention the extra income generated from the rent-out space in the new building, however it is common sense that to build a new building would need a large sum of money which is likely to far exceed the money economized. Thus, based on the slim information above, we can never evaluate the balance between the actual costs of these two actions. 感觉有些繁琐

Another point worth considering is the historical and artistic value the old hall has that may possibly outweigh the economic expenses. In fact, owing to its long history, the old town hall may be a symbol of this city for which tourists were attracted here. The citizens might be proud of it and its historical significance. Hence, if the government adopts the advice proposed by some citizens who may be benefit from it to reconstruct the hall, it will possibly make the majority of its citizens opposed and disappoint the tourists who are devoted to the economy of the tourism. Therefore, the government should consider the overall situation before taking any actions.

To sum up, the argument is poorly supported. To strengthen it, the arguer should further investigate the expense spent on these acts and judge other aspects such as historical value and the touristy value to make the final conclusion.也是按照模板来的，但是最好自己再总结得好些

开头和第二段有很多是复述的题目中的话，考试时尽量不要出现，用简练的话写，表明意思便可，文中很多词，用得不是很妥当，可能是对单词的意思把握的不准，再加强训练吧

meixisaraUID: 2119317

比如哪些词不合适呢?既然有很多
那相信楼上可以随便就说出很多吧:)

imongUID: 140258

记得把题目贴上 要不然不会有人给你看。

the act that the old town hall should be torn down would definitely save money.

should?

第一段找的几个点还算准。第二段完全不着调。

学习下范文先。