argument163 kito（欢迎拍砖）

kito9695UID：209685

====================Argument===================
【题目】Issue163（497words）
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."
【翻译】为节省大量支出，Rockingham应该拆除具有百年历史的市政厅并用一些市民所提议的更大更节能的建筑来代替。旧的市政厅过于狭小，无法使政府雇佣的大量员工在里面舒适地工作。而且，旧市政厅冬天采暖和夏天制冷都很花钱。新的更大的市政厅将会更加节能，单位面积所需的采暖和制冷费用都比旧建筑少。还有，我们可以把新建筑的一部分空间出租，从而为Rockingham市增加收入。
【提纲】
1、市政厅狭小与否与成本没有关联
2、单位面积费用少不代表总费用少，其他费用，总费用
3、新建筑出租未必可以带来收入，即便收入增加不代表节约了成本

By giving the evidence that the old town hall is too small to comfortably accommodate the number of people who are employed by the town and it is very costly to heat the old hall in winter and cool it in summer while the new, larger building would be more energy efficient, costing less per square foot to heat and cool than the old hall and that it would be possible to rent out some of the space in the new building, thereby generating income for the town of Rockingham, the arguer is inclined to believe that turning down Rockingham's century-old town hall and replacing it by the larger and more energy-efficient building that some citizens have proposed would save a considerable amount of money. It is not to deny that he larger and more energy-efficient building certainly has several advantegous comparing with the old one, nevertheless, the conclusion metioned neglecting other possible alternatives seems not so compelling, while some assumptiongs and evidence also proved to be unwarranted and dubious after a full scrutiny.

First of all, the major problem with this argument is that the arguer fails to establish a causal relationship between the capability of the building and its cost. It is maybe true that the old town hall is too small to comfortably accommodate the number of people who are employed by the town, however that not means the amout of money for using the old town tall is too much. Thus this evidence lends little support to the argument.

Second, another defect law that weakens the argument is that the arguer neglects some other factors that may also lead to high cost of the new building. For one thing, though the new building would be more energy efficient, costing less per square foot to heat and cool than the old hall, it is also lager than the old one, and thus it is likely that the total cost will exceed the old one. For the other, except the fee for heating and cooling, it is possible that the new hall will need other cost, such as the fee for building, decorating and so on, which will also add up to the total amount of the money. Besides, pahaps repairing the equipment for heating and cooling or changing the one of old hall may also appear to be a good idea to reduce its cost.

Last but not least, the arguer harshly equals generating income by rending part of the new building with reducing the cost of it. And whether it will be rended out is still unknow. We can’t ruling out the possibility that the new building’s location is not good enough that few people would like to rend it, or maybe it costs too much for rending it, so no income will be gotten.

To sum up, the argument is not reasoned as it stands. To make it logically accepted, the arguer would also have to take other relative factors into account.

不好意思，晚了，有事耽搁了，issue可能还会晚，不过今晚一定会补起来的！

[ 本帖最后由 kito9695 于 2006-1-2 23:22 编辑 ]

jingjingtousUID：2164820

【题目】Issue163（497words）
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."
【翻译】为节省大量支出，Rockingham应该拆除具有百年历史的市政厅并用一些市民所提议的更大更节能的建筑来代替。旧的市政厅过于狭小，无法使政府雇佣的大量员工在里面舒适地工作。而且，旧市政厅冬天采暖和夏天制冷都很花钱。新的更大的市政厅将会更加节能，单位面积所需的采暖和制冷费用都比旧建筑少。还有，我们可以把新建筑的一部分空间出租，从而为Rockingham市增加收入。
【提纲】
1、市政厅狭小与否与成本没有关联
2、单位面积费用少不代表总费用少，其他费用，总费用
3、新建筑出租未必可以带来收入，即便收入增加不代表节约了成本

By giving the evidence that the old town hall is too small to comfortably accommodate the number of people who are employed by the town and it is very costly to heat the old hall in winter and cool it in summer while the new, larger building would be more energy efficient, costing less per square foot to heat and cool than the old hall and that it would be possible to rent out some of the space in the new building, thereby generating income for the town of Rockingham, 这个evidence也太长了吧？看得我都晕了，楼主能否简单概括一下呢？the arguer is inclined to believe that turning down Rockingham's century-old town hall and replacing it by the larger and more energy-efficient building用new building吧？ that some citizens have proposed would save a considerable amount of money. It is not to deny that he the larger and more energy-efficient building the new building certainly has several advantegous advantages comparing with over the old one, nevertheless, the conclusion metioned neglecting去掉mentioned吧，一个主语可以同时由过去分词和现在分词修饰吗？ neglects other possible alternatives seems not so compelling, while some assumptiongs and evidence also proved to be unwarranted and dubious after a full scrutiny.觉得这段写得太长了，前面对作者的论据方面可以概括一下，末尾的the conclusion seems.....和some assumptions and evidence also proved....感觉好像重复！

First of all, the major problem with this argument is that the arguer fails to establish a causal relationship between the capability of the building and its cost. It is maybe true that the old town hall is too small to comfortably accommodate the number of people who are employed by the town, however that not means the amout of money for using the old town tall is too much. Thus this evidence lends little support to the argument.我觉得你这段论证力度不够，最好能讲下为什么old hall的花费少，与new hall比较在哪方面少， 还有employees感觉不适的可能原因。个人认为英应该把因果关系放到old hall小和必须拆除方面。

Second, another defect law这个词怎么冒出来的？不理解 that weakens the argument is that the arguer neglects some other factors that may also lead to high cost of the new building. For one thing, though the new building would be more energy efficient, costing less per square foot to heat and cool than the old hall, it is also lager than the old one, and thus it is likely that the total cost will exceed the old one. For the other, except the fee for heating and cooling it, it is possible that the new hall will need other cost, such as the fee for building, decorating and so on, which will also add up to the total amount of the money. Besides, pahaps repairing the equipment for heating and cooling or changing the one of old hall may also appear to be a good idea to reduce its cost.这段论证的比较好，从三个角度1 new hall总电量可能大于old hall  2 new hall 有其它费用 3 可以通过其它方式改善old hall

Last but not least, the arguer harshly equals generating income by rending renting part of the new building with reducing the cost of it. And 这里and 起什么作用？上半句是你的论点，怎么可以跟论据并列呢？whether it will be rended out is still去掉 unknow. We can’t cannot ruling rule out the possibility that the new building’s location is not good enough that few people would like to rend rent it, or maybe it costs too much for rending it, so no income will be gotten.这个太绝对了吧，我觉得income应该有，但是不一定能补偿重建的巨大花费。这段论证写的太草率，尤其是结尾部分，楼主看看怎么改一下才好？

To sum up, the argument is not reasoned reasonable as it stands. To make it logically accepted, the arguer would also have to take other relative factors into account.什么other relative factors?楼主能说具体点吗？这个结尾也太快了吧？

总的感觉是开头太罗嗦了，二四两段论证的力度不够，结尾太仓促了，第三段写的比较好，大家加油！！！

[ 本帖最后由 jingjingtous 于 2006-1-3 12:44 编辑 ]