argument163 victors小组by ghost33

ghost33UID: 2267869

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: 482          TIME: 0:59:26          DATE: 2007-7-12

Even at the first glance, this argument suffers from incomplete analysis and hasty conclusion. And whether to tear down the old town hall or to build a new one needs debate further.

The main reason that the arguer gives to his/her conclusion is that the new building will save considerable money, however, it is unwarranted with careful examination. The arguer simply bases one of his/her reasons on the mere fact that the new larger building will cost less per square foot to heat and cool than the old hall, ignoring that the larger area of the new building will consume more energy either to heat or cool. Given that the new building will be 4 times bigger than the old town hall while it needs about 3/4 energy of that needed by the old town hall to heat or cool per square, the new building needs 3 times energy of the old building. Without ruling out such possibility, we cannot take the arguer's recommendation seriously.

The arguer's next reason that the new building may generate some money by renting out rooms is not well grounded either. First, it costs to tear down the old town hall and build a new one.  If the government does wish to have more rooms to rent out, more money will be needed to build those additional rooms. Second, whether those rooms will earn money or not depends on the fees. However, if the earning cannot cover the cost of building it in 30 years, the residents have to pay more taxes to support the new building. The new burden will turn the argument to an irresponsible recommendation.

The arguer also fails to consider other aspects, which may offer an better solution. One is that the arguer tells us that the old town hall cannot hold so many workers, but with no further information whether all these jobs are necessary. In other words, maybe we can reduce the number of the officers to address to overcrowdness of the workplace, as well as to save money for the town. The other one is that if no officer should be cut off, maybe we can rent a building for those governors and turn the old town hall to a museum. Since the old town hall has a 100-year history, it does have special meaning to the town even to the country, which may attract more people to visit the town and improve the economy of the town. If the earning from the new museum can cover the rent fee of the workplace, this plan can save the town the money of building a new, larger workplace.

In conclusion, this argument doesn't analysis carefully. To bolster his/her argument, the arguer needs provide further information about the cost of tearing down the old town hall and build a larger one, the possible fee from the rooms that will be rented out.