argument164 飞跃dreams小组第二次作业

yolanda419UID: 2420192

Argument164.  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：520              不限时

     In this argument, the arguer concludes that commissioning a famous architect known for experimental and futuristic buildings is the best solution to the problem that Claitown University needs both affordable housing for its students and a way to fund the building of such housing. To support his recommendation, the arguer cites the following reasons ：（1）tourists are willing to pay money to tour the building and the money from the tourists can cover the building cost. (2) the new building will attract new students as well as donations from alumni (3) part of the building can be used as office space. Close scrutiny of each of these reasons, however, reveals that none of them lend credible support to the recommendation.

    First of all, retaining a famous architect may draw out another problem. It’s common knowledge that famous architect always charge far more than general architects. Undoubtedly, it will increase the total fees to build the needed house and the added fees are likely to build a dormitory that just fit to the students. Otherwise, the students may be not able to afford such a “famous” house. Moreover, the architect the arguer suggested is known for experimental and futuristic buildings, in my opinion, choosing an in point house would be better than building another house when Claitown found the experimental and futuristic building unsuited after a few years. So, it is not practical to commission a famous architect know for experimental and futuristic buildings.

    The second place, there is not any sound evidence shows that tourists are willing to pay money to tour this new building, even though there is, we are not informed that how many tourists foreseeable to dig down for it. Perhaps, the building fails to attractive people’s vision or just a few interesting in it, in this case, the plan that taking the income from tourists to fill up the cost of the building will change into bubble.

    Thirdly, a new building is little indication that more students will choose Claitown and alumni will provide a considerable donation. Students mostly take one college’s whole construction and famous specialties into account and building is only one aspect which weakly contributes to the whole appearances of colleges. Furthermore, whether alumni make a donation or not is due to the alumni’s affection to their Alma Mater and the necessary of their Alma Mater as well as the circulating fund on their hands. Without a promise from the alumni, Claitown should think over about this assumption.

    Finally, using part of the building as office space is lacking consideration. It will bring somewhat incommodiousness both to students and office workers and add difficulty in administration. In addition, to build a house fitted for students and office requires more materials and higher skills higher, which return to increase the total fees.

   In a word, the recommendation lies on slippery assumptions and remains unconvincing. To bolster it, the arguer should provide the total sum including retaining architect and building house, the population of the tourists, and income from tourists that is foreseeable, the students’ situation and the information about alumni and so on. And to better assess the recommendation, I would need to know how Claitown will arrange the shared-house exactly.

neomaverickUID: 2449179

  In this argument, the arguer concludes that commissioning a famous architect known for experimental and futuristic buildings is the best solution to the problem that Claitown University needs both affordable housing for its students and a way to fund the building of such housing. To support his recommendation, the arguer cites the following reasons ：（1）tourists are willing to pay money to tour the building and the money from the tourists can cover the building cost. (2) the new building will attract new students as well as donations from alumni (3) part of the building can be used as office space. Close scrutiny of each of these reasons, however, reveals that none of them lend credible support to the recommendation.    First of all, retaining a famous architect may draw out another problem. It’s common knowledge that famous architect always charge far more than general architects. Undoubtedly, it will increase the total fees to build the needed house and the added fees are likely to build a dormitory that just fit to the students. Otherwise, the students may be not able to afford such a “famous” house. Moreover, the architect the arguer suggested is known for experimental and futuristic buildings, in my opinion, choosing an in point house would be better than building another house when Claitown found the experimental and futuristic building unsuited after a few years. So, it is not practical to commission a famous architect know for experimental and futuristic buildings.    The second place, there is not any sound evidence shows that tourists are willing to pay money to tour this new building, even though there is,（建议不要这么快就even though） we are not informed that how many tourists foreseeable to dig down for it. Perhaps, the building fails to attractive people’s vision or just a few interesting in it, in this case, the plan that taking the income from tourists to fill up the cost of the building will change into bubble.    Thirdly, a new building is little indication that more students will choose Claitown and alumni will provide a considerable donation. Students mostly take one college’s whole construction and famous specialties into account and building is only one aspect which weakly contributes to the whole appearances of colleges. Furthermore, whether alumni make a donation or not is due to the alumni’s affection to their Alma Mater and the necessary of their Alma Mater as well as the circulating fund on their hands. Without a promise from the alumni, Claitown should think over about this assumption.    Finally, using part of the building as office space is lacking consideration. It will bring somewhat incommodiousness both to students and office workers and add difficulty in administration. In addition, to build a house fitted for students and office requires more materials and higher skills higher, which return to increase the total fees. (good expression)   In a word, the recommendation lies on slippery assumptions and remains unconvincing. To bolster it, the arguer should provide the total sum including retaining architect and building house, the population of the tourists, and income from tourists that is foreseeable, the students’ situation and the information about alumni and so on. And to better assess the recommendation, I would need to know how Claitown will arrange the shared-house exactly.

评价
1.      抱歉，时间有限，我不能像上篇那样仔细地找出错误。干脆评语都用中文写了。我这篇主要看逻辑。
2.      个人觉得思维比较乱，当然我也是菜鸟，可能你的思维ETS喜欢也说不定。这里我要指出一点，就是argument 的原则是：深度大于广度，逻辑大于语言。作者写了很多，但是深度好像不够，而且有的错误又交织在一起。我最近发现argument在30分钟内写450字左右是我的极限了（至少是现在），所以一方面写全很难，一方面又来不及，建议作者抓主要矛盾。
3.      作者的语言仍需自己修改提高。模板化的迹象较重，非模板的语言不够简练。