ARGUMENT163 [Victors小组]第十一次作业 by jennetrj

jennetrjUID: 2275453

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: 556          TIME: 00:30:00        

In this argument, the author concludes that replacing the old town hall with a new building would save a large amount of money for the city council of Rockingham. To justify this conclusion, the author claims that the new building, the one that much larger than the old hall, was supposed to be more energy efficient. Moreover, the author points out the spare space of the new building would make money by renting out so as to generate income for the town. However, close scrutiny reveals several flaws in it.

To begin with, the author unfairly assumes that the old town hall could not provide enough space for staffs working in it. The only evidence provided in the passage is that the building could not comfortably accommodate the people hired by the town. It is totally possible that part of the employees hired by the town serve as part-time staffs, so they could share the space with their counterparts. Or perhaps some of them work at places other than the old town hall, thus staffs work there get enough spaces. Until the author provides specific data about the condition of working staffs in the town hall, the assumption that not enough spaces were available at the building could not be taken seriously.

Furthermore, no warrant could be made that the total cost on energy for the assumed more energy efficient building would decrease. The cost on energy expenditure per square might less than that of the old building, but if accounts for the space, the total costs would very possible to exceed that of the old hall, or even be times of the old one. Without eliminating or even considering such possibility, the author could not convince me to accept the conclusion that the new building will cost less on energy.

Even granted that the new building would be more economical, the author overlooks the disadvantage of replacing the century-old town hall with a new one. Maybe the town-hall is the oldest building in Rockingham, and might be a historical spot in town's history. Or perhaps the old hall is the only left building designed by a world famous architect. Either scenario, if true, would serve to undermine the feasibility of replacing it with the new building.

Finally, there's the possibility of bringing about the financial problem for the town council if such strategy is accomplished, since more money should be spent on the construction. And perhaps such expenditure could not be balanced by money retrenched by less energy consuming or spare space rent. Until the author completes the analysis, the conclusion based on it is highly suspect.

In sum, the argument is groundless as it stands. To consolidate it, the author should provide more evidence to show that the old town hall could not provide enough space for those officials working in it. In addition, the author should account for the total expense for the new building to serve as the town hall, including the expenses on construction and total costs on energy, to ensure us that building a new hall would decrease the government expenses. To better assess the argument, we need to know whether there would be other disadvantages to renting out some space of the town hall and balance the revenues and costs of it to show the possibility of saving money.

solartorchUID: 2244205

In this argument, the author concludes that replacing the old town hall with a new building would save a large amount of money for the city council of Rockingham. To justify this conclusion, the author claims that the new building, the one that much larger than the old hall, was supposed to be more energy efficient. Moreover, the author points out the spare space of the new building would make money by renting out so as to generate income for the town. However, close scrutiny reveals several flaws in it.

To begin with, the author unfairly assumes that the old town hall could not provide enough space for staffs working in it. The only evidence provided in the passage is that the building could not comfortably accommodate the people hired by the town. It is totally possible that part of the employees hired by the town serve as part-time staffs, so they could share the space with their counterparts. Or perhaps some of them work at places other than the old town hall, thus staffs work there get enough spaces. Until the author provides specific data about the condition of working staffs in the town hall, the assumption that not enough spaces were available at the building could not be taken seriously.

Furthermore, no warrant could be made that the total cost on energy for the assumed more energy efficient building would decrease. The cost on energy expenditure per square might less than that of the old building, but if accounts for the space, the total costs would very possible to exceed that of the old hall, or even be times of the old one. Without eliminating or even considering such possibility, the author could not convince me to accept the conclusion that the new building will cost less on energy.

Even granted that the new building would be more economical, the author overlooks the disadvantage of replacing the century-old town hall with a new one. Maybe the town-hall is the oldest building in Rockingham, and might be a historical spot in town's history. Or perhaps the old hall is the only left building designed by a world famous architect. Either scenario, if true, would serve to undermine the feasibility of replacing it with the new building.

Finally, there's the possibility of bringing about the financial problem for the town council if such strategy is accomplished, since more money should be spent on the construction. And perhaps such expenditure could not be balanced by money retrenched by less energy consuming or spare space rent. Until the author completes the analysis, the conclusion based on it is highly suspect.

In sum, the argument is groundless as it stands. To consolidate it, the author should provide more evidence to show that the old town hall could not provide enough space for those officials working in it. In addition, the author should account for the total expense for the new building to serve as the town hall, including the expenses on construction and total costs on energy, to ensure us that building a new hall would decrease the government expenses. To better assess the argument, we need to know whether there would be other disadvantages to renting out some space of the town hall and balance the revenues and costs of it to show the possibility of saving money.

真是没什么说的了，批的很全面，简明扼要，值得学习;d: