argument164 飞越dreams小组第2次作业

gre_killer_wuUID: 2451830

argument164 飞越dreams小组第2次作业 by gre_killer_wu

Argument 164
Claitown University needs both affordable housing for its students and a way to fund the building of such housing. The best solution to this problem is to commission a famous architect known for experimental and futuristic buildings. It is common knowledge that tourists are willing to pay money to tour some of the architect's buildings, so it can be expected that tourists will want to visit this new building. The income from the fees charged to tourists will soon cover the building costs. Furthermore, such a building will attract new students as well as donations from alumni. And even though such a building will be much larger than our current need for student housing, part of the building can be used as office space.


字数：436    时间：50分钟

In this article, the author asserts that Claitown University (CU) should commission a famous architect known for experimental and futuristic buildings to design a dormitory for its students, for the new building will satisfy the needs of both affordable housing for students and a way to fund the building. To justify his assertion, the author shows some reasons on which his argument based. However, an absence of logical integrity renders the author’s argument unconvincing.

First, the author mentions that tourists are willing to pay money to tour some of this architect's buildings, and then concludes that the new building designed by this architect will be a financial source of CU. The conclusion is not well reasoned. For the author can only convince me that “some” of the architect’s buildings, not all of them, attract tourists, so the author can not convince me that the new dormitory built in CU will agree with tourists’ appetite. Even assume that the new dormitory will agree with tourists’ appetite, the author shows no evidence that tourists will flock to CU for the visiting of the new building. Perhaps those architects attract tourists not only because they agree with tourists’ appetite, but also the site they posit. It is entirely possible that they are posited in areas constructed for tourism, and the tourists flock to those areas mainly for other beauty, or great of interests. Without ruling out this possibility or show that CU is located in a tourism area, the author’s conclusion is not acceptable.

Even the new architect will attract tourists, the author has not given the details about the cost to build such an architect and the anticipate income from the tourism. Maybe that such a building will take an extraordinary enormous cost, which can not be covered by the income from tourism in an acceptably short time. If so, the suggestion of the author will be unreality.

Finally, the author mentions the anticipate donations from alumni and a prosperity of more students enroll. It is not logically correct. The alumni may donate for many possible reasons, such as the teaching quality, the results of research in the university, the environment, and so on. The same situation is also in consideration in selecting a university for the students.

In sum, the author fails to justify his assertion to commission a famous architect because of the absence of the evidence which shows that the new building has an excellent prosperity in tourism, and will bring CU a high income considering the cost. The claim that the new dormitory will attract more students and donations is also not well reasoned.

[ 本帖最后由 gre_killer_wu 于 2008-1-29 15:56 编辑 ]

syjsss213UID: 2415289

In this article, the author asserts that Claitown University (CU) should commission a famous architect known for experimental and futuristic buildings to design a dormitory for its students, for the new building will satisfy the needs of both affordable housing for students and a way to fund the building. To justify his assertion, the author shows some reasons on which his argument based. However, an absence of logical integrity renders the author’s argument unconvincing.


First, the author mentions that tourists are willing to pay money to tour some of this architect's buildings, and then concludes that the new building designed by this architect will be a financial source of CU. The conclusion is not well reasoned. For the author can only convince me that “some” of the architect’s buildings, not all of them, attract tourists, so the author can not convince me that the new dormitory built in CU will agree with tourists’ appetite. （也有些白马非马的味道～）Even assume that the new dormitory will agree with tourists’ appetite, the author shows no evidence that tourists will flock to CU for the visiting of the new building. Perhaps those architects attract tourists not only because they agree with tourists’ appetite, but also the site they posit. It is entirely possible that they are posited in areas constructed for tourism, and the tourists flock to those areas mainly for other beauty, or great of interests. Without ruling out this possibility or show that CU is located in a tourism area, the author’s conclusion is not acceptable.（感觉对原文观点“新建筑会吸引游客”并没有很好反驳，应该强调新建筑不能满足财政预算，而不是说因为其他原因游客才来）


Even the new architect will attract tourists, the author has not given the details about the cost to build such an architect and the anticipate income from the tourism. Maybe that such a building will take an extraordinary enormous cost, which can not be covered by the income from tourism in an acceptably short time. If so, the suggestion of the author will be unreality.（建筑支出与预期收入这个点找的很准）
Finally, the author mentions the anticipate donations from alumni and a prosperity of more students enrollment. It is not logically correct. The alumni may donate for many possible reasons, such as the teaching quality, the results of research in the university, the environment, and so on. The same situation is also in consideration in selecting a university for the students.（这一段分析的很好，我的写法的确有点偏颇，应该强调的还是这些人选择时候的想法）



In sum, the author fails to justify his assertion to commission a famous architect because of the absence of the evidence which shows that the new building has an excellent prosperity in tourism, and will bring CU a high income considering the cost. The claim that the new dormitory will attract more students and donations is also not well reasoned.（感觉A的结尾可以提出一些建议，一些加强作者观点的论据，而不必重复说作者的观点很弱）