argument163 G-89-互助社-8.11日同主题作文！欢迎互拍！

polymathUID: 179557

163.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."
为节省大量支出，Rockingham应该拆除具有百年历史的市政厅并用一些市民所提议的更大更节能的建筑来代替。旧的市政厅过于狭小，无法使政府雇佣的大量员工在里面舒适地工作。而且，旧市政厅冬天采暖和夏天制冷都很花钱。新的更大的市政厅将会更加节能，单位面积所需的采暖和制冷费用都比旧建筑少。还有，我们可以把新建筑的一部分空间出租，从而为Rockingham市增加收入。

In this argument,the author recommends that Rockingham's centrury-old town hall should be torn down and replaced by a larger and more energy-efficient building in order to save money.To support this recommendation,the author points out three reasons: (1) the larger one can better accormodate the employees in the town; (2) the new one cost less per square foot to heat and cool and thus will be more energy efficient; (3) it will be an additional revenue if renting out some of the space in the new building.At the first glance,the recommendation appeals plausible, but a close examination will reveal how groundless it is.

First, the arguer neglects the cultural value of the century-old town hall. It is possible that the old town hall attracts people in the towns nearby or even from national wide to visit Rockingham and thereby generating income for the town of Rockingham. Besides, the arguer neglects the fact that building a larger and more energy efficient building will need more money than it will save, and the cost may exceed the government's eduring ability. What’s more, the old building is still working well from the author's words. And from my point of view, if people perform some enlargement or better maintanence to it, holding all the employees at the same time or discrease the cost of heating and cooling will be not a problem.

Second, the capacity of the old town hall cannot accommodate the town’s employee lends little support to the arguer’s recommendation. In fact, it may indicate that the number of employee should be cut down or employees may not have to live in the old hall together for there are possibly many other apartments for living neraby. Moreover, although the new hall will cost less per square foot to heat and cool, it is possible that the whole energy expenditure may be more larger than that of the old small hall because of its relative largerness. If so, this fact would serve to refute the arguer’s recommendation that setting up a new town hall can save money.

Third, the author overestimates the possibility and future of renting the new hall.No evidence shows that there is a broad market with the demands to rent some of the space in the new building.And the arguer fails to provide detailed information concerning with the location and renting-fee of the new hall. Without evidence to the contrary, it is entirely possible that the new hall will turn out to be difficult for renting out some of its space with the relative remote location and the poor competence compared to other places.

In sum, the argument is unpersuasive as it stands. To strenghen the argument, the arguer must provide more detailed information to convince us that the old hall has no historical sense and should be torn dowm for its poor conditions.In addition,the author also should demonstrate that the new hall will surely generate income for the town and can acturally save money in its whole cost.(498)

niuniu1983UID: 2117413

ryanqUID: 154025

小砖一块:拆除老建筑和兴建新建筑都需要money,而作者没有考虑

写得不错:-)

polymathUID: 179557

是真的么？那我就不改了！继续下一篇！:)