argument163 熊熊的互拍组第四次作业--from熊熊~互拍！

sebarinaUID: 2108158

-----------------
还是那套老话~
回拍留链接~
要求拍得要狠~熊饼我最喜欢啦
------------------------
163The 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."


1.One of the reason he or she provides is that the old town hall is too small to comfortably accommodate the number. But he or she fails to tell us how many employers are living in the hall, some may rent house outsides.
2.Anther reason he provides is that the new building would be more energy efficient, so the cost will be lower than before, while neglecting the total squares.
3.The author assumes that because the new building is large and the fee of rent will bring them more income, while not mentioning the demand for these rooms.


Argument163  第3篇 让砖头来得更猛烈些吧！
------摘要------
作者：寄托家园作文版普通用户     共用时间：30分1秒     442 words
从2005年7月9日14时48分到2005年7月9日15时30分
------题目------
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.'
------正文------
The author argues that 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. To support this view, he or she points out that the old town hall is too small to accommodate the number of people who are employed by the town.  And the author also points out that building a new larger one will save energy cost and bring in rent income. The suggestion sounds reasonable, but after carefully examination, we will find several flaws in it.

A threshold problem is that the author fails to distinguish the different conceptions about the numbers of outside-employers. The author claims that since the old town hall is so small that there may be not sufficient space for the outsider-employers, after comparing the numbers and the space. However, the author fails to distinguish the conception between the number of employers and the one of those who live in the hall. Instead, he assumes that the outside-employers all live in the hall, which, in fact, is ungrounded. There is a possibility that these outsider-employers would live out of the hall, such as renting a house or even owning one. Without enough evidence, this view will be doubtful.

A second problem is that the author fails to count the squares of the new hall into consideration, while he asserts that the new one will cost less for more energy-efficiency. Although the new house might be more efficient in energy consideration, the square of the new building should not be neglected. It is possible that after taking the area into consideration, the total energy cost would be higher than before. Without ruling out such possibility, the author could not convince us.

A final problem involves the assumption that the new hall could be rent to outsiders in order to earn income. The author points out the new building will bring them incomes when it would be rent out. There is no evidence to support the assumption that, the new hall will attract people to live in. Maybe there are much better houses on rent nearby, and perhaps, after all the employers live in, there is no space any more. So, if the author could not provide the information about the conditions demand and supply, the assumption would be rejected out of hand.

To sum up, the article is not as convincing as it appears. To support his view, the author needs to provide enough evidence and information, and also, he or she needs to illustrate the argument in clear definition to distinguish some different conceptions. What is more, the author also needs to tell us the future demand and supply of rooms in new hall.

duckyl35UID: 201612

The author argues that 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. To support this view, he or she points out that the old town hall is too small to accommodate the number of people who are employed by the town.  And the author also points out that building a new larger one will save energy cost and bring in rent income. The suggestion sounds reasonable, but after carefully examination, we will find several flaws in it.

A threshold problem is that the author fails to distinguish the different conceptions about the numbers of outside-employers. The author claims that since the old town hall is so small that there may be not sufficient space for the outsider-employers, after comparing the numbers and the space. However, the author fails to distinguish the conception between the number of employers and the one of those who live in the hall. Instead, he assumes that the outside-employers all live in the hall, which, in fact, is ungrounded. There is a possibility that these outsider-employers would live out of the hall, such as renting a house or even owning one. Without enough evidence, this view will be doubtful.我怎么读了半天题也没看出题目有说让员工住在old hall里啊？？题目只是说无法使大量员工舒适的工作啊？？感觉这个错误很诡异嘞～:@

A second problem is that the author fails to count the squares of the new hall into consideration, while he asserts that the new one will cost less for more energy-efficiency. Although the new house might be more efficient in energy consideration, the square of the new building should not be neglected. It is possible that after taking the area into consideration, the total energy cost would be higher than before. Without ruling out such possibility, the author could not convince us.

A final problem involves the assumption that the new hall could be rent to outsiders in order to earn income. The author points out the new building will bring them incomes when it would be rent out. There is no evidence to support the assumption that, the new hall will attract people to live in. Maybe there are much better houses on rent nearby,我当时怎么就没想到这点！？zan～ and perhaps, after all the employers live in,还是第一个错误的问题，市政厅里住员工……感觉比较牵强（还是我孤陋寡闻啊！？）:( there is no space any more. So, if the author could not provide the information about the conditions demand and supply, the assumption would be rejected out of hand.

To sum up, the article is not as convincing as it appears. To support his view, the author needs to provide enough evidence and information, and also, he or she needs to illustrate the argument in clear definition to distinguish some different conceptions. What is more, the author also needs to tell us the future demand and supply of rooms in new hall.
我觉得some people那也有问题， 谁知道这些人是不是经过实地调查得出的结论要建新楼呢？还有老楼的历史价值，我在文章中说了一下，要不要考虑呢？别的问题实在是拍不出了，就是第一个问题！！
duckyl35要熊拍～:handshake:)

sebarinaUID: 2108158

accommodate是提供食宿吧？可能是我理解错了~some people确实我也想到了不过没时间啦嘿嘿
后面的意见都收了~
-----
一会儿给你拍

duckyl35UID: 201612

呵呵，一家之言仅供参考嘞～我理解的也不到位的～