argument163 乡政府的新楼

alcestisUID: 2101945

Argument163
------摘要------
作者：alcestis     共用时间：30分3秒     556 words->559words
------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 arguer gives one-sided information about the disadvantages of the old town hall building and the assumed advantages of the new town hall building. And he further hastily concludes the old town hall building should be torn down.

Firstly, the arguer fails to give the real reasons why the old town hall can not comfortably accommodate the employees of the town, and unfairly claims that the size of the town hall building is responsible. The arguer fails to take in to account other possible reasons. The short of space may indicate the town has too much employees, and Rockingham need to lay off some of the employees to free the space and improve the efficiency of the management. And it is equally possible that the inner layout of the town hall is poor which causes the waste of space, and makes the town hall cannot comfortably accommodates all its employees. If it is this case, the town hall should hire some people to redesign the inner layout rather than tear the hall down. Without precluding the situation mention above, the arguer can not safely owe the lacking of accommodating ability to the size of the town hall.

Secondly, the arguer cannot make me believe that the proposed new town hall have the advantages that he claims. I suspect that whether that kind of energy-efficient design is available. Even it is available, the arguer cannot make me believe the new town hall will save money for the town. The cost of tearing down the old hall and building a new one should be taken into account, in order to fairly evaluate if the propose new town hall will save money for the citizens of Rockingham.

Thirdly, the arguer groundlessly assumes that there will be someone who wants to rent some of the space of the new town hall. Maybe the town hall is solely designed to meet the need of a government, and is not adequate for other business. And it is also possible that the rent of the building is expansive and can hardly afford by the potential renters. Or maybe the people just think working in the same building with the government is uncomfortable or strange. These kind of feelings could also stop them from renting the space.

Finally, even if the arguer can give sufficient evidence to show Rockingham indeed in need of a new town hall, he cannot jump to the conclusion that the old hall should be torn down. The old hall may have other use than accommodating the government of the tall. Since the town hall building have a long history, the people, may view it as a kind of memorial of the past rather than a building. Tearing it down may hurt the feeling of many of the residents. And maybe the old town hall can be preserved and redesign as a museum of the town, which may attract some tourists and bring additional income to the town government. Without considering the potential use of the old town hall building, it is arbitrary and irresponsible of the arguer to suggest that it should be torn down.

All in all, this argument is not cogent as it stands. To finally decide whether to preserve the old town hall building and whether to build a new one, the residents of Rockingham should take further consideration.

MIMOSARLUID: 2112846

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 arguer gives one-sided information about the disadvantages of the old town hall building and the assumed advantages of the new town hall building. And he (换成专业得吧，ARGURE, AUTHOR)further hastily concludes the old town hall building should be torn down.

Firstly, the arguer fails to give the real reasons why the old town hall can not comfortably accommodate the employees of the town, and unfairly claims that the size of the town hall building is responsible. (我个人觉得怪，看看论证语言怎么说？)The arguer fails to take in to account other possible reasons. The short of space may indicate the town has too much employees, and Rockingham need to lay off some of the employees to free the space and improve the efficiency of the management. And it is equally possible that the inner layout of the town hall is poor which causes the waste of space, and makes the town hall cannot comfortably accommodates all its employees. If it is this case, the town hall should hire some people to redesign the inner layout rather than tear the hall down. Without precluding the situation mention above, the arguer can not safely owe the lacking of accommodating ability to the size of the town hall.

Secondly, the arguer cannot make me （convince?是不是好点？）believe that the proposed new town hall have the advantages that he claims. I suspect that whether that kind of energy-efficient design is available. Even it is available, the arguer cannot make me believe the new town hall will save money for the town. The cost of tearing down the old hall and building a new one should be taken into account, in order to fairly evaluate if the propose new town hall will save money for the citizens of Rockingham.

Thirdly, the arguer groundlessly assumes that there will be someone who wants to rent some of the space of the new town hall. Maybe the town hall is solely designed to meet the need of a government, and is not adequate for other business. And it is also possible that the rent of the building is expansive and can hardly afford by the potential renters. Or maybe the people just think working in the same building with the government is uncomfortable or strange. These kind of feelings could also stop them from renting the space.(可以考虑总结一下，without ruling out such possibilites*****,THERE IS NO GUARANTEE)
Finally, even if the arguer can give sufficient evidence to show Rockingham indeed in need of a new town hall, he cannot jump to the conclusion that the old hall should be torn down. The old hall may have other use than accommodating the government of the tall. Since the town hall building have a long history, the people, may view it as a kind of memorial of the past rather than a building. Tearing it down may hurt the feeling of many of the residents. And maybe the old town hall can be preserved and redesign as a museum of the town, which may attract some tourists and bring additional income to the town government. Without considering the potential use of the old town hall building, it is arbitrary and irresponsible of the arguer to suggest that it should be torn down.

All in all, this argument is not cogent as it stands. To finally decide whether to preserve the old town hall building and whether to build a new one, the residents of Rockingham should take further consideration.
逻辑很清楚，看看论证语言，加强一下会更好！
努力啊

[ Last edited by MIMOSARL on 2005-8-19 at 16:01 ]

alcestisUID: 2101945

多谢草草！！！