argument163 决战830拍砖组™"8月23日作业同主题高频请兄弟们拍

林森森UID: 163922

Argument163  第1篇 让砖头来得更猛烈些吧！
------摘要------
共用时间：30分27秒     430 words
------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------
Merely based upon dubious and unfounded evidence, the arguer attempts to convince us that Rockingham's century-old town hall should be replaced by a new one. To substantiate his claim, the arguer indicates that the old town hall is not comfortable enough and high energy-consuming. In addition, he pointed out that the new town hall would generate income for the town by rent out some of the space. As the argument stands, several essential scenarios, which the arguer fails to consider, if true, may serve to undermine the line of reasoning.

The first and most glaring logical fallacy the arguer commits is the hasty generalization. Before deciding to tear down the old town and built a new one, other concerns should be taken into consideration. For one thing, given that the old town hall is too old to be comfortably accommodates the workers in it, it does not guarantee that with modifying inside it and enlarge beside the old one cannot meet the workers' need. And this is a convenient and economized way. For another, as has been emphasized in the first sentence in this argument, the old town hall is far more than a common one, which is century-old and should be undeniably preserved. To tear it down is not a rational way.  Unless these and other possible factors as above are considered and ruled out, the conclusion is unconvincing.

In addition, one more point worth mentioning is that the arguer neglects better solutions to achieve the same acquirement. One of the most effective ways has been mentioned above, that is to annexing the old town hall. Some other ways can also be taken into consideration. For instance, to build a new town hall by the old one while at the same time keep the old one for tourism. I believe it is a high effective way to preserve the century-old treasure as well as a rational way to generating income for the town. Actually, this is a much acceptable measure for the government to take.

Furthermore, even though a new hall has been built and some of the space in the new building is rent, it is unwarranted to say that it is a way to generate income for the town. Maybe to the largest extent, the income from the rent is conspicuously only enough for the town hall itself.

In summary, the reasoning seems valid as presented above. However, the argument suffers several logical flaws. To better evaluate the argument, we need more solid evidence such as the replacement of the old town hall is necessary and more valid argumentation.

[ Last edited by staralways on 2005-8-24 at 00:15 ]