argument163 coffee 小组 忙考试了sorry

黄川UID: 2168599

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."
提纲；1 单位面积所需的采暖和制冷费用少和总花费减少之间没有因果关系
2没有证据表明Rockingham市会增加收入。
3 可能有更好的方法来解决问题

In the argument, the arguer recommended that a new, larger building should be built instead of the century--old town hall for the sake of generating income for the town of Rockingham. To support the argument, less cost per square foot and the extra profit of renting spare space in the new building was cited. However, what the arguer relies on is just unpersuasive comparisons, thus the recommendation made by the arguer cannot be taken simply.

In the first place, the arguer fails to establish the causal relationship between less cost per square foot and decrease in the whole expense. First, as we all know, the expense of heating or cooling is determined by the cost per square and the proportions of the building. It is entirely possible that the town would spend more money on heating or cooling due to fact that the new building is larger than the old one. Second, the cost of heating or cooling is just merely a part of the whole expense. Many other factors such as the cost of constructing, the maintenance and so forth will effect the whole expense more or less. So even if there is a decline in the cost of heating or cooling, the whole expense will increase eventually. A thorough analysis should be considered before coming to the conclusion that just less cost per square foot leads to the decrease in the whole expense.

Furthermore, the arguer provides no evidence to support the assumption that the town will gain the extra profit by renting out some of the space in the new building. On the one hand, maybe no one was willing to rent some of the space in the new building. Perhaps the rent charge of the space is high compared to adjacent buildings. Or perhaps the potential client cannot afford the cost of renting due to the fact that the economy of local area is in the great depression. On the other hand, maybe the employees working in the building did not like to rent space to other people. Perhaps the unfavorable noise of the tenants will disturb their work. In short, without considering the possibilities talked above, the arguer cannot lead to the recommendation.

Moreover, the arguer fails to consider other possible alternatives that may be better solve the problem. Perhaps it is more efficient to replace the out--dated, energy--waster air conditioner of the old building. Or perhaps it may be wise to adopt feasible plans to enlarge the space of the old building rather than torn down. Any of the two cases, if true, will serve to undermine the arguer's conclusion.

In sum, the argument is neither persuasive nor reliable. To support the recommendation, the arguer should collect more information about the causal relationship and whether the town will gain extra income or not. Also other better methods should be considered.