argument163 第一次限时,还有5天考,求指点迷津!急!

子旋UID: 2196177

TOPIC: 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."
WORDS: 449          TIME: 上午 12:30:00          DATE: 2006-8-26

This argument makes conclusion that Rochingham's century-old town hall should be replaced by a larger one with energy-efficiency. In order to support his claim, the author presents the evidence that the old one is too small and not energy-efficiency as the new one. He also claims that they can rent out some rooms for financial support. It seems reasonable on the surface. However, it contains several facets that are unreliable. I will discuss each of them in turn.

To begin with, the author fails to rule out other factors relative to the high cost. He claims that the old hall is too small to hold the large population in the government. But we cannot get any evidence that it is the real reason of its high cost. It is possible that they should cut down the people in the government. We should also examine the function of this old hall that may be fitted in this city. As he fails to provide information concerning the reason of high cost, it is impossible for him to find a proper means to solve the problem, it is also presumptuous to judge the suggestion and adopt it.

Second, he is presenting a false dilemma by imposing an either-or choice between two courses of action that need not be mutually exclusive. The system in the hall may not energy-efficient because the extreme temperatures in the hall. As we know, it will consume the electricity very much when the rooms are at the extreme temperatures in winter and summer. So we may adjust the temperature in the hall but not necessarily change another system. After all, it is not only choice to save energy.

Thirdly, he makes a false analogy and conclusion on the cost of the two halls. He just reveals the evidence that the new hall costs less per square foot to heat and cool than the old one, but as the large hall's square is much more than before, it may cost much. If so, the suggestion of the author may be inconsistent with his evidence and undermine this disposal.

Finally, he fails overlooks other likely benefits of the old hall and negative effect of his new proposal. Renting out some of the space in the new building may bring some unexpected problem such as disorder, which is negative in government. Also, as the value of the old hall, it may not properly to replace it simply without any careful thinking.

In conclusion, the argument, while it seems logical at first, has several flaws as discussed above. It could be improved by providing evidence that the respective advantage of the new hall or the best way to improve the old one.

doushengboUID: 2158091

哥们现在看看北美范文里有一节写论证格式的 按那个思路写就行了 还有不要出现低级地语法错误 语言呢 ARGUMENT 大概就那么点 想必你也该差不多 了