argment163...欢迎来拍。。必回拍

foreveraUID: 202035

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."


正文
In the argument, providing some defects of old town hall in Rockingham and merits of the kind of building, the speaker asserts that Rockingham should replace the century-old town hall by a larger and more energy-efficient hall. At the first glance, the author’s claim seems to be reasonable, but with further analysis, the author’s logic suffers from several serious fallacies as follows.

Primarily, whether the uncomfortable accommodation of employees in the town is due to the small size of the hall still leaves open to doubt. I can not exclude the possibility that the government of the town is able to run fluently with a smaller amount of employees than the present number. In other words, not all the people working in the town hall are efficiently accomplishing their jobs. Under this circumstance, the most economical method of dealing with the uncomfortable accommodation is firing the employees who work with lower efficiency. This very method is able to not only provide the hard-working employees with comfortable accommodation but also decrease the outcome of the town. Therefore, to cite that the town should tear the old town hall due to uncomfortable accommodation is so hasty.

What’s more, the author offers insufficient evidence to convince me that the old town hall is of lower energy efficiency. It is quite possible that the larger cost to heat in winter and cool in summer is because of the higher price of energy. Even the old town hall is efficient in heating and cooling, the total outcome in energy of the government is unlikely to be at a low level.  And even granted the lower energy efficiency, it is not possibly resulting from the improper structure of the old town hall. Maybe the lower energy efficiency is largely due to worse quality of heating and cooling apparatus. So, to this extent, the best way of increasing the energy of town hall is replacing heating and cooling equipments rather than destroying the old town hall.

In addition, it is also suspicious whether the rent out of space of the new building is able to generate income to the town. The people who rent the space do pay the town much for the space, but it can not be ruled out the possibility that the people who rent will disturb the working efficiency of the employees in the new building. The government of the town needs to pay more to accomplish the same task than ever before. The renting income is not probably larger than the extra outcome caused by lower working efficiency.

Finally, the main purpose of building the new town hall is to save a considerable amount of money, whereas the cost of the new building in unknown. If, quite possibly, the expenditure of the new hall will far overwhelm the money it saves, the profit of the citizens in the town is much tampered.

To sum up, to make the assertion more convincing, the author needs to provide more detailed information, including (1) the employees in the town is necessary and efficiently working; (2) the lower energy efficiency of the town hall is due to worse structure of the hall; (3) the people who rent the space in the new building will not definitely disturb the working efficiency of employees;(4) all the money saved by the new building is far more than the expenditure it causes.

purple-1984UID: 2132524

In the argument, providing some defects of old town hall in Rockingham and merits of the kind of building, the speaker asserts that Rockingham should replace the century-old town hall by a larger and more energy-efficient hall. At the first glance, the author’s claim seems to be reasonable, but with further analysis, the author’s logic suffers from several serious fallacies as follows.

Primarily, whether the uncomfortable accommodation of employees in the town is due to the small size of the hall still leaves open to doubt. I can not exclude the possibility that the government of the town is able to run fluently（fluent 多用来形容 语言流畅） with a smaller amount of employees than the present number. In other words, not all the people working in the town hall are efficiently accomplishing their jobs.（用现在进行时好像有点不妥~） Under this circumstance, the mostmethod of dealing with the uncomfortable accommodation is firing the employees who work with lower efficiency. This very method is able to not only provide the hard-working employees with comfortable accommodation but also decrease the outcome of the town. Therefore, to cite that the town should tear the old town hall due to uncomfortable accommodation is so hasty.

What’s more, the author offers insufficient evidence to convince me that the old town hall is of lower energy efficiency. It is quite possible that the larger cost to heat in winter and cool in summer is because of the higher price of energy. （既然题目中说单位面积所需费用都比建筑物少，就应该差别在设备效率上了吧，因为能源的价格应该是固定值吧）Even the old（ＮＥＷ吧） town hall is efficient in heating and cooling, the total outcome in energy of the government is unlikely to be at a low level.  And even granted the lower energy efficiency, it is not possibly resulting from the improper structure of the old town hall. Maybe the lower energy efficiency is largely due to worse quality of heating and cooling apparatus. So, to this extent, the best way of increasing the energy of town hall is replacing heating and cooling equipments rather than destroying the old town hall.

In addition, it is also suspicious whether the rent out of space of the new building is able to generate income to the town. The people who rent the space do pay the town much for the space, but it can not be ruled out the possibility that the people who rent will disturb the working efficiency of the employees in the new building. The government of the town needs to pay more to accomplish the same task than ever before. The renting income is not probably larger than the extra outcome caused by lower working efficiency.

Finally, the main purpose of building the new town hall is to save a considerable amount of money, whereas the cost of the new building in unknown. If, quite possibly, the of the new hall will far overwhelm the money it saves, the profit of the citizens in the town is much tampered.

To sum up, to make the assertion more convincing, the author needs to provide more detailed information, including (1) the employees in the town is necessary and efficiently working; (2) the lower energy efficiency of the town hall is due to worse structure of the hall; (3) the people who rent the space in the new building will not definitely disturb the working efficiency of employees;(4) all the money saved by the new building is far more than the expenditure it causes.