Argument163 寄托4人组 8-23

bridgewalkerUID: 208595

Argument163: 401 words   30 minutes
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.'
-------------------------------
In this argument, the speaker suggests that in order to save money, Rockingham's old town hall should be replaced by a new modern one. However, after a careful scrutiny, I find the reasoning suffers from several flaws.

To begin with, the speaker does not provide sufficient evidence to show that the tearing down of the old hall is necessary. Although the hall might be small to accommodate people, but we can solve this problem by build a few supplemental houses which are much cheaper instead of tearing the whole old hall down and building a new big building. Although it might be costly to heat and cool the old hall, it does not imply that this ineffectiveness is caused by the hall itself. For the sake of saving money, other methods such as replace the old air-conditioning equipments with new more efficient facilities might work.

Secondly, the speaker does not mention how much money will be cost to tear down the entire old hall and build a brand-new one. If the expense is too large that the town council cannot afford, it will impose extra financial burden to both local government and citizens. If people have to pay more taxes, government suffer from sever financial deficit, this proposal may not likely be passed by town council.

Thirdly, even assuming that the town can afford the expense, the assertion that new building can save money is open to doubt. In the first place, although the new building might be more energy efficient, since it is much bigger than the old one, more energy will be used in warming and cooling, thus the cost of energy consumption per square would rise. In the second place, the possibility of renting out some of the space in the new building is unwarranted. The speaker does demonstrate that the new building is attractive to potential renters. If the new building is not located at the business district, the environment around is polluted, the transportation is inconvenient, it might be hard to rent out some space in the new building.

In conclusion, the argument is unpersuasive according to flaws listed above. In order to strengthen the reasoning, the speaker should provide more information to prove that the old hall is necessary to be torn down, the town can afford the cost to build a new one, and the new building can really save money in the future.

tangjihedeUID: 2107695

zhan!

tangjihedeUID: 2107695

Argument163: 401 words   30 minutes
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 】[文物古迹，价值无量。城市象征，旅游支柱。]should be torn down and replaced by the larger and【 more energy-efficient building】 that【 some 】[大多数市民的反对]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.'
-------------------------------
In this argument, the speaker suggests that in order to save money, Rockingham's old town hall should be replaced by a new modern one. However, after a careful scrutiny, I find the reasoning suffers from several flaws.

To begin with, the speaker does not provide sufficient evidence to show that [the/delete] tearing down of the old hall is necessary. Although the hall might be small to accommodate people, [but] we can solve this problem by build a few supplemental houses which are much cheaper instead of tearing the whole old hall down and building a new big building.[句与句之间的连接：on the other hand…] Although it might be costly to heat and cool the old hall, [it does not imply that this ineffectiveness is caused by the hall itself. vague] For the sake of saving money, other methods such as replace[ing] the old air-conditioning equipments with new more efficient facilities might work.

Secondly, the speaker does not mention how much money will be cost to tear down the entire old hall and build a brand-new one. If the expense is too large that the town council cannot afford, it will impose extra financial burden to both local government and citizens. If people have to pay more taxes, government suffer from sever financial deficit, this proposal may not likely be passed by town council.

Thirdly, even assuming that the town can afford the expense, the assertion that new building can save money is open to doubt. In the first place, although the new building might be more energy efficient, since it is much bigger than the old one, more energy will be used in warming and cooling, thus the cost of energy consumption per square would rise. In the second place, the possibility of renting out some of the space in the new building is unwarranted. The speaker does[not] demonstrate that the new building is attractive to potential renters. If the new building is not located at the business district, the environment around is polluted, the transportation is inconvenient, it might be hard to rent out some space in the new building.

In conclusion, the argument is unpersuasive according to flaws listed above. In order to strengthen the reasoning, the speaker should provide more information to prove that the old hall is necessary to be torn down, the town can afford the cost to build a new one, and the new building can really save money in the future.

[语言有些小错误，还有两点可以攻击，我标在题上了。附我的提纲供参考：
1．        能不能拆？历史价值，市民反对。
2．        就算能拆，有没有必要拆？在别处盖些房子；改善内部设施
3．        此外，也没证明盖新的就更好。成本；能耗；出租]

bridgewalkerUID: 208595

1． 能不能拆？历史价值，市民反对。

这点没想到，收下了~

哥哥家有二师兄UID: 2124390

这个观点与tangjihede在总帖上发的那个可下载的上面有,我觉得自己看那个很有效!分析也比较完全透彻!至少自己想一遍,再拿它那个补充一次,就比较齐全了

tangjihedeUID: 2107695

嗯，但记住一定要培养自己的逻辑。那篇文章确实可以提醒我们很多点，但我觉得行文的顺序比较乱。最好自己统合一下，也就是我反复坚持的even granted。even accepted。。。（ft，这个观点我说了不下10遍了。要是误人子弟就惨了。）