argument163 kito组，关于拆旧房子

gaojiehahaUID：2149729

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、关于一些居民的信息不祥
2、没考虑当地的气候
3、没考虑花销与受益谁更大
4、没考虑历史悠久的老房子的经济效益
正文：（578words)
In this argument, the arguer claims that in order to save money, Rockingham’s century-old town hall should be torn down and replaced by the larger and more energy-efficient building. It seems reasonable at first glance, but go over carefully, the argument is fallacious from several ways.

Firstly, the argument is lack of persuasion as to some citizens’ proposal of building a larger and more energy-efficient building replacing the Rockingham’s century-old town hall. The argument does not provide us detail information about citizens who proposed. The exact amount of citizens who proposed or the proportion of the citizens proposed in the whole citizens in Rockingham is not provided. And the careers, ages, background, etc. as to the citizens who proposed are not inferred yet. Perhaps the number of those who proposed to build a new building is small. Or perhaps those who proposed to build a new building are not for saving money, but for other reasons. In all those cases, those citizens’ point of view cannot represent most people’s idea and unconvincing. Thus, without introducing more information about the citizens, the conclusion based on citizens’ proposal is too hasty.

Secondly, The arguer emphasis that only if Rockingham’s century-old town hall be torn down and replaced by the larger and more energy-efficient building, a considerable amount of money would be saved. To provide evidence on his opinion, he pointed that it is very costly to heat the old hall in winter and cool in summer. Maybe the description is true. However, the arguer fails to describe the weather condition in Rockingham. If Rockingham’s summer is not too hot and winter is not too cold, there is no need to provide energy to control the temperature. Then the cause for change the building is unwarranted.

Additionally, the arguer pointed that it would be possible to save amount of money by renting out some of the space in the new building. However, the arguer fails to consider two possible aspects. For one aspect, the cost of setting up a new building and the income of renting some space are not evaluated. Maybe the cost is equal to or lager than the income, in that case, it is apparent that it would impossible to save money. For the other aspect, whether the space would be rent out is not considered. Maybe the geographical circumstances are not suitable for renting, or few people would consider to renting the space there, then the revenue is hard to receive.

Last but not least, the arguer do not consider the economical value of a century-old town hall. A century-old town hall is rare that it is very costly than any other modern building. Once the centuries-old building is destroyed, there is no second centuries-old building in the Rockingham. Government and populace should cherish this bequest by our ancestors. Also the century-old town hall has huge commercial values. It will attract the tourists from elsewhere to look around, and brings economical benefit. It is obviously that the advantage cannot be bringing by a modern building.

In sum, the argument is too hasty to draw such a rough conclusion without considering many other factors and other information. In order to make the recommendation more convincing, the arguer should reinforce the evidence from two ways: (1) go with exact and detailed information about the citizens’ view about the century-old town hall and the weather condition in Rockingham; (2) measure the advantages and disadvantages as to reserve the century-old building.

[ 本帖最后由 11yaoyao 于 2006-1-3 15:03 编辑 ]

@amy@UID：209096

In this argument, the arguer claims that in order to save money, Rockingham’s century-old town hall should be torn down and replaced by the larger and more energy-efficient building. It seems reasonable at first glance, but go over carefully, the argument is fallacious from several ways. [嗯，开头简洁明了，很不错哦]

Firstly, the argument is lack of persuasion as to [“关于”，学习ing] some citizens’ proposal of building a larger and more energy-efficient building replacing the Rockingham’s century-old town hall. The argument does not provide us detail information about citizens who proposed. The exact amount of citizens who proposed or the proportion of the citizens [我觉得这里可能需要加who，然后前面的who proposed就可以去掉了] proposed in the whole citizens in Rockingham is not provided. And the careers, ages, background, etc. as to [刚刚用了as to，这里又用了，能不能换一个词呢？比如about什么的] the citizens who proposed are not inferred [这里是referred吧] yet. Perhaps the number of those who proposed to build a new building is small. Or perhaps those who proposed to build a new building are not for saving money, but for other reasons. In all those cases, those citizens’ point of view cannot represent most people’s idea and [加上be] unconvincing. Thus, without introducing more information about the citizens, the conclusion based on citizens’ proposal is too hasty. [这一段用了很多who proposed，显得有点罗嗦，能不能简洁一点，或者换种表达方式？]

Secondly, The arguer emphasis [换成动词emphasized] that only if Rockingham’s century-old town hall be torn down and replaced by the larger and more energy-efficient building, a considerable amount of money would be saved. To provide evidence on [这里是不是应该用for？] his opinion, he pointed [这里是不是要加out？] that it is very costly to heat the old hall in winter and cool in summer. Maybe the description is true. However, the arguer fails to describe the weather condition in Rockingham. If Rockingham’s summer is not too hot and winter is not too cold, there is no need to provide energy to control the temperature. Then the cause for change the building is unwarranted. [嗯…. 这里说如果Rockingham的夏天不太热，冬天不太冷，就不需要制冷取暖了，可我觉得题目既然以这个来做理由，就应该是需要的吧？嗯，有点绕。如果说那里冬天和夏天比较短，需要取暖制冷的时间很短，即使成本比较贵也贵不了多少，这样会不会更有力一点呢？]

Additionally, the arguer pointed that it would be possible to save amount of money by renting out some of the space in the new building. However, the arguer fails to consider two possible aspects. For one aspect, the cost of setting up a new building and the income of renting some space are not evaluated. Maybe the cost is equal to or lager than the income, in that case, it is apparent that it would impossible to save money. For the other aspect, whether the space would be rent out is not considered. Maybe the geographical circumstances are not suitable for renting, or few people would consider to renting the space there, then the revenue is hard to receive.

Last but not least, the arguer do not consider the economical value of a century-old town hall. A century-old town hall is rare that it is very costly than any other modern building. Once the centuries-old building is destroyed, there is no second centuries-old building in the Rockingham. Government and populace should cherish this bequest by our ancestors. Also the century-old town hall has huge commercial values. It will attract the tourists from elsewhere to look around, and brings [bring] economical benefit. It is obviously that the advantage cannot be bringing [brought] by a modern building.

In sum, the argument is too hasty to draw such a rough conclusion without considering many other factors and other information. In order to make the recommendation more convincing, the arguer should reinforce the evidence from two ways: (1) go with exact and detailed information about the citizens’ view about the century-old town hall and the weather condition in Rockingham; (2) measure the advantages and disadvantages as to reserve the century-old building. [结尾不错]

修改了一下，供你参考，呵呵~~

gaojiehahaUID：2149729

论证的不太好，逻辑也不好，现在再看，自己都寒:L

gaojiehahaUID：2149729

我觉得这里可能需要加who，然后前面的who proposed就可以去掉了

嗯，对！改ing``

如果说那里冬天和夏天比较短，需要取暖制冷的时间很短，即使成本比较贵也贵不了多少，这样会不会更有力一点呢？

对，我就是这个意思，可能表达的不是很清楚吧

谢谢amy的悉心修改:handshake