Argument163 请大家多多指教！~~

BerlinbearUID: 207694

ＡＲＧＵＭＥＮＴ163
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."

Outline:
1.新大楼单位面积供热供冷的成本低不代表整个大楼的费用将降低。
2.新大楼不一定可以将多余面积出租并赚钱，并且，这种做法可能影响员工工作环境。
3.大楼内的员工可能并很习惯并喜欢就大楼的环境，并且没有证据表明旧大楼不能给现有员工提供满意的工作条件。
In order to prove that the Rockingham would save money by replacing its century-old town hall with a lager and more energy-efficient building as some citizens has proposed, the arguer appeals to the facts that building a new town will make employees who work in it feel more comfortable and so on. At first blush this argument seems  reasonable, a close scrutiny will show that it suffers severe criticism as follows.

For one thing, a premise of the argument is that constructing the new building instead of the old one will cost less when heating and cooling the in different seasons. However, cooling or heating per square foot of the new town spends less money does not mean that the entire mansion would also save money at all. As the new town will be much larger than the old one, it is very possible that the whole cost of the new one could not save any money and maybe even exceed. What is more, the arguer neglect the some likelihoods , including that the high technological air condition equipments of the new building may also be more expensive than the older one. Doubts on this point, which cannot be rebuked by the above argument, will lead a dismissal to this analysis. In addition, the speaker ignores some potential methods for the old town to improve its internal condition, for instance, retrofitting with a new climate control system.

Besides, even granted that the variable costs of the new building may decrease, it is still doubtful whether the new building could be successfully generate income by renting out some spare room. There lies the likelihood that it is hard for people or enterprises to rent space in the new town for the stake of its remote locations or expensive rent price. Consequently，it is very possible that the construction of the mansion would result in grave resource and energy waste. What is more, one of the reasons why the new larger building should be fashioned is that the older is too small to satisfy employees who work in it. Thus, if the new town rent out much of its space, how could it achieve the goal that enhances environments of its staff? Even worse, perhaps the act renting out some space would influence employees’ who work in the building. For example, if a advertisement firm rent some space in the new town, it is sure that the building will become much noisy and make town staff unsatisfied accordingly. In short, the argument does not consider the suggestion carefully in the aspects of arrange its large space and the improvement of employees’ working condition.

Finally, the argument does not provide any evidence to prove that employees’ who work in the building feel uncomfortable so that it must construct a new one to replace it. Perhaps people who work in it have been already accustomed to the surroundings of their work place so that they are not intend to alter to a new unfamiliar environment which may make them less efficient and effective than before actually. It is also possible that there are not so many employees in the town building that maybe a new larger one has little significance to be fashioned. Thus, this main reason why a new town should be build is also a serious flaw in the argument.

In final analysis, the arguer fails to offer a tenable argument. The arguer might have to provide more evidence to show that to build a new town building could save money indeed while enhance the work condition of staff. And some improvements of the old town should also be considered earnestly.

48778UID: 209221

In order to prove that the Rockingham would save money by replacing its century-old town hall with a lager and more energy-efficient building as some citizens has proposed, the arguer appeals to the facts that building a new town will make employees who work in it feel more comfortable and so on. At first blush this argument seems  reasonable, a close scrutiny will show that it suffers severe criticism as follows.最后两句话之间应该用个连词
For one thing, a premise of the argument is that constructing the new building instead of the old one will cost less when heating and cooling the(去掉 in different seasons. However, cooling or heating per square foot of the new town spends less money does not mean that the entire mansion would also save money at all. As the new town will be much larger than the old one, it is very possible that the whole cost of the new one could not save any money and maybe even exceed(直接用even exceed). What is more, the arguer neglect(S) the some likelihoods , including that the high technological air condition equipments of the new building may also be more expensive than the older one(S). Doubts on this point, which cannot be rebuked by the above argument, will lead a dismissal to this analysis. In addition, the speaker ignores some potential methods for the old town to improve its internal condition, for instance, retrofitting with a new climate control system.

Besides, even granted that the variable costs of the new building may decrease, it is still doubtful whether the new building could be successfully generate income by renting out some spare room. There lies the likelihood that it is hard for people or enterprises to rent space in the new town for the stake of its remote locations or expensive rent price. Consequently，it is very possible that the construction of the mansion would result in grave resource and energy waste. What is more, one of the reasons why the new larger building should be fashioned is that the older is too small to satisfy employees who work in it. Thus, if the new town rent out much of its space, how could it achieve the goal that enhances environments of its staff? Even worse, perhaps the act renting out some space would influence employees’ who work in the building. For example, if a(AN) advertisement firm rent some space in the new town, it is sure that the building will become much noisy and make town staff unsatisfied accordingly. In short, the argument does not consider the suggestion carefully in the aspects of arrange its large space and the improvement of employees’ working condition.

Finally, the argument does not provide any evidence to prove that employees’ who work in the building feel uncomfortable so that it must construct a new one to replace it. Perhaps people who work in it have been already accustomed to the surroundings of their work place so that they are not intend (intend)to alter to a new unfamiliar environment which may make them less efficient and effective than before actually. It is also possible that there are not so many employees in the town building that maybe a new larger one has little significance to be fashioned. Thus, this main reason why a new town should be build is also a serious flaw in the argument.

In final analysis, the arguer fails to offer a tenable argument. The arguer might have to provide more evidence(S) to show that to build a new town building could save money indeed while enhance the work condition of staff. And some improvements of the old town should also be considered earnestly

文章没个论据分析的很到位.向你学习

智恩UID: 2160717

In order to prove that the Rockingham would save money by replacing its century-old town hall with a lager and more energy-efficient building as some citizens has proposed, the arguer appeals to the facts that building a new town will make employees who work in it feel more comfortable and so on. At first blush this argument seems  reasonable,(however) a close scrutiny will show that it suffers severe criticism as follows.

For one thing, a premise of the argument is that constructing the new building instead of the old one will cost less when heating and cooling the in different seasons. However, cooling or heating per square foot of the new town spends less money does not mean that the entire mansion would also save money at all. As the new town will be much larger than the old one, it is very possible that the whole cost of the new one could not save any money and maybe even exceed. What is more, the arguer neglect(S) the(去掉） some likelihoods , including that the high technological air condition equipments（air－conditioner） of the new building may also be more expensive than the older one. Doubts on this point, which cannot be rebuked by the above argument, will lead a dismissal to this analysis. In addition, the speaker ignores some potential methods for the old town to improve its internal condition, for instance, retrofitting with a new climate control system.

Besides, even granted that the variable costs of the new building may decrease, it is still doubtful whether the new building could be successfully generate income by renting out some spare room. There lies the likelihood that it is hard for people or enterprises to rent space in the new town for the stake of its remote locations or expensive rent price. Consequently，it is very possible that the construction of the mansion would result in grave resource and energy waste. What is more, one of the reasons why the new larger building should be fashioned is that the older is too small to satisfy employees who work in it. Thus, if the new town rent out much of its space, how could it achieve the goal that enhances environments of its staff? Even worse, perhaps the act renting out some space would influence employees’ who work in the building. For example, if a（an） advertisement firm rent（S） some space in the new town, it is sure that the building will become much noisy and make town staff unsatisfied accordingly. In short, the argument does not consider the suggestion carefully in the aspects of arrange（arranging） its large space and the improvement of employees’ working condition.

Finally, the argument does not provide any evidence to prove that employees who work in the building feel uncomfortable so that it must construct a new one to replace it. Perhaps people who work in it have been already accustomed to the surroundings of their work place so that they are not intend（intend是动词，改成do not intend或intending） to alter to a new unfamiliar environment which may make them less efficient and effective（两个词不都是有效的意思？为什么用两个，是不是还有其他意思，可能我不知道的） than before actually. It is also possible that there are not so many employees in the town building that maybe a new larger one has little significance to be fashioned. Thus, this main reason why a new town should be build is also a serious flaw in the argument.

In final analysis, the arguer fails to offer a tenable argument. The arguer might have to provide more evidence to show that to build a new town building could save money indeed while enhance the work condition of staff. And some improvements of the old town should also be considered earnestly.

思路清晰，说得也很清楚，就是再注意一下语言。加油！

jingjingtousUID: 2164820

In order to prove that the Rockingham would save money by replacing its century-old town hall with a lagerlarger and more energy-efficient building as some citizens has proposed, the arguer appeals to the facts that building a new town will make employees who work in it feel more comfortable and so on. At first blush this argument seems  reasonable, however a close scrutiny will show that it suffers severe criticism as follows.

For one thing, a premise of the argument is that constructing the new building instead of the old one will cost less when heating and cooling the去掉 in different seasons. However, cooling or heating per square foot of the new town spends less money does not mean that the entire mansion would also save money at all. As the new town will be much larger than the old one, it is very possible that the whole cost of the new one could not save any money(cost could not save money? cost could not be reduced) and maybe even exceed. What is more, the arguer neglect neglects the（去掉） some likelihoods , including that the high technological air condition equipments(air-conditions) of the new building may also be more expensive than the older one ones. Doubts on this point, which cannot be rebuked by the above argument, will lead a dismissal to this analysis.（好句） In addition, the speaker ignores some potential methods for the old town to improve its internal condition, for instance, retrofitting with a new climate control system.

Besides, even granted that the variable costs of the new building may decrease, it is still doubtful whether the new building could be去掉 successfully generate income by renting out some spare room rooms. There lies the likelihood that it is hard for people or enterprises to rent space in the new town for the stake sake of its remote locations location or expensive rent price. Consequently，it is very possible that the construction of the mansion would result in grave(好词) resource and energy waste. What is more, one of the reasons why the new larger building should be fashioned is that the older is too small to satisfy employees who work in it. Thus, if the new town rent out much of its space, how could it achieve the goal that enhances environments of its staff? Even worse, perhaps the act action renting out some space would influence employees’ (the activities of employees）who work in the building. For example, if a an advertisement firm rent some space in the new town, it is sure that the building will become much noisy and make town staff unsatisfied accordingly. In short, the argument does not consider the suggestion carefully in the aspects of arrange  the arrangement of its large space and the improvement of employees’ working condition.

Finally, the argument does not provide any evidence to prove that employees’ employees who work in the building feel uncomfortable so that it must construct a new one to replace it. (to prove that it must be construct a new building to replace the older one concerning the fact that employees who work in the building feel uncomfortable)Perhaps people who work in it have been already accustomed to the surroundings of their work place so that they are not intend to alter to(transfer to??) a new unfamiliar environment which may make them less efficient and effective than before actually. It is also possible that there are not so many employees in the town building that maybe a new larger one has little significance to be fashioned. Thus, this main reason why a new town（building什么时候变成town了？） should be build is also a serious flaw in the argument.

In the final analysis, the arguer fails to offer a tenable argument. The arguer might have to(might 或 have to 用一个吧？) provide more evidence to show that to build a new town building could save money indeed while enhance the work condition of staff. And some improvements of the old town should also be considered earnestly.

真是一篇值得学习的好文章，论证思路清晰完整，对错误驳斥有力，
只是有些小错误，相信应该是限时写的吧，加油哦！

wendy-wang821UID: 2167765

Argument163 请大家多多指教！~~ＡＲＧＵＭＥＮＴ163

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."

Outline:1.新大楼单位面积供热供冷的成本低不代表整个大楼的费用将降低。
2.新大楼不一定可以将多余面积出租并赚钱，并且，这种做法可能影响员工工作环境。
3.大楼内的员工可能并很习惯并喜欢就大楼的环境，并且没有证据表明旧大楼不能给现有员工提供满意的工作条件。
In order to prove that the Rockingham would save money by replacing its century-old town hall with a lager and more energy-efficient building as some citizens has proposed[我的建议：building a new hall, which is energy-efficient, to replace the century-old one], the arguer appeals to the facts that building a new town will make employees who work in it feel more comfortable and so on. (这句模板很好，但是我觉得你的思路不太清晰：in order to prove –结论/建意/假设，the author appeals to the facts that –证据的简述。可能应该是为了证明the new one is superior to the old one，作者求助于事实：新的节能省钱，舒适，还能赚钱)At first blush glance this argument seems reasonable, a close scrutiny will show that it suffers severe criticism as follows.不知道对不对，你再考虑一下。总之这个模板很不错，赞一下

For one thing, a premise of the argument is that constructing the new building instead of the old one will cost less when heating and cooling the in different seasons. However, cooling or heating per square foot of the new town spends less money does not mean that the entire mansion would also save money at all. Ts① As even if the new town will be much larger than the old one, it is very possible that the whole cost of the new one could not save any money and maybe even exceed the prearranged expenditure. ②What is more, the arguer neglect the(去掉) some likelihood , including that the high technological air condition equipments of the new building may also be more expensive than the older one（好，站的住脚的深入）. ③Doubts on this point, which cannot be rebuked by the above argument, will lead a dismissal to this analysis. （好句子，很有外国话的感觉咧！！！）④In addition, the speaker ignores some potential methods for the old town to improve its internal condition, for instance, retrofitting with a new climate control system.（能说说翻新比新盖一个更省钱就好些了。是不是应该把上面的句子重排一下顺序？1、2、4、3，标志词是at first/ what is more/ further ,因为further 有更深层的意思，听上去美美的。之后说这些全是不予考虑其他因素，有力且毋庸置疑。）

Besides, even granted that the variable costs of the new building may decrease, it is still doubtful whether the new building could be successfully generate income by renting out some spare room. （开门见山，我喜欢）①There lies the likelihood that it is hard for people or enterprises to rent space in the new town for the stake of its remote locations or expensive rent price. Consequently，it is very possible that the construction of the mansion would result in grave resource and energy waste. （有很强的逻辑性哦！！）②What is more, one of the reasons why the new larger building （我始终觉得语言精到贵于长篇大论，another cause for establishing a new hall is that ）should be fashioned is that the older is too small to satisfy employees who work in it. (换句话说，就是这句不合逻辑，因为旧得不好不代表新的就受欢迎。这种用词不慎反到说明我们的反击无力。)Thus,(这个信号词用的不合理：Ironically) if the new town rent out much of its space (应该是too much its space), how could it achieve the goal (arrive the goal/ gain the purpose) that enhances office environments of (For) its staff? (你的语言水平不错哦，有问句穿插显得很舒服很通顺！！！狂赞)Even worse, perhaps the act (act 是动作/action是行为)renting out some space would influence employees’ who work in the building. （如果我是看官，就会问影响什么了，让他们觉得热闹还是烦？disturb the peaceful working condition as well as employees’ emotions and seriously, reduce their working efficiency）For example, if aan advertisement firm rent some space in the new town(紧张了吧?in the new town hall), it is sure（过于肯定，这岂不是让看官抓小辫子？obviously, it is not logical to eliminate a possibility）that the building will become much noisy and make town staff unsatisfied (不满意不如换成不舒适uncomfortable)accordingly. In short, the argument does not consider the suggestion carefully in the aspects of arrange its large space and the improvement of employees’ working condition.（为了你的文章完美些，我不得不说最后这句最好说：作者简直是逻辑不清，谬误一堆，自相矛盾，我们有决心批死他，因为这样的话我们容易背下来且用起来不用思考）self-contradiction/ stick to several fallacies/his or her suggestion just is a delusive sophistication.

Finally, the argument does not provide any evidence to prove that employees who work in the building feel uncomfortable so(又紧张了吧？so uncomfortable that –太不舒服以至于怎么样爽他一下) that it must construct a new one to replace it. Perhaps people who work in it have been already accustomed to the surroundings of their work place so that they are not intend to alter to a new unfamiliar environment which may make them less efficient and effective than before actually. It is also possible that there are not so many employees in the town building that maybe a new larger one has little significance to be fashioned. Thus, this main reason why a new town should be build is also a serious flaw in the argument. （这段有些牵强，因为3段已经说了员工不爽，可不可以来点儿惊人又简短的呢？如百年建筑多有历史感和美感，是可以当旅游景点的，好好保护会赚更多钱！钱！不比狂省钱来的强多了？就两句灭掉作者，省时间哦）/或者说就算真的需要盖个新的，也得考虑科技允不允许在当今盖又省钱又节能又大又舒适的hall，不会是看了白宫不错就想效仿吧，那是专业人士设计的，花钱请名设计师太贵了。（发现今天的我好啰嗦，呵呵，没办法，双子座都这样。希望你看了后生蛋一样快乐。给你些支持，你的功底很好了，但是一定要坚持这样的水平且不断往上走，打倒ets不在话下，耶稣保佑）我晚些会写篇同一个题目的，欢迎你的指导。:p

In final analysis, the arguer fails to offer a tenable argument. The arguer might have to provide more evidence to show that to build a new town building could save money indeed while enhance the work condition of staff. And some improvements of the old town should also be considered earnestly.

wendy-wang821UID: 2167765

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."
1，对调查可信性质疑，作者企图偷换概念
2，假设调查可信，能不能考虑其他的解决办法
3，即使真的有必要修新的，也不一定比现在的省钱
In order to convince the suggestion that building a new town hall, which was conceived to be more energy-efficient, would save a considerable amount of money for the town of Rockingham, the author appeals to his or her assumptions that the new building is more economical and more comfortable as well as more profitable than the pre-existing one. However, although the argument is well presented, it fails to convince in a number of areas due to its lapses in logical thinking.

To begin with, what if we consider some important terminologies in the argument? For example, what does “some citizens have proposed” mean? Does it mean that these respondents can represent the whole citizens’ opinions? Or does it mean that the size of sample is improperly chosen and somehow predisposed to include citizens who are more vocal than those who are opposed to establish the new building or care little or even not at all about this issue? And what does “comfortable “mean? Does it mean that government staff could freely enjoy advanced high-tech facilities in the town hall? Or does it mean that the whole area of this pre-existing building makes staff impossible to find a peaceful room to have a break? Since the key terms in this argument are too vague to be informative, undoubtedly, we cannot simply trust the author’ assertion.

Further, even if we accept that the evidence previously offered is credible enough to substantiate the author’ suggestion, other factors which might weaken his or her suggestion cannot be neglected completely. Firstly, the old building could be remolded or renovated to be energy-costless. Perhaps, by this method, the total amount of energy used in heating or cooling is equal to or even considerably lower than that in the new building. Additionally, whether were there mature energy-saving technologies that can supply enough energy with such a low cost? Certainly, it is possible to build such an energy-efficient building on current engineering technologies basis, however, whether the government has to spend additional fees, such as servicing or maintaining is open to doubt. For these matters, the cost of building a new town hall might be an outrageous payment which possibly exceeds the sum of money previously conceived.

Finally, even assuming the veracity of the fact that building a new energy-efficient is necessary, it is illogical to associate saving money and earning additional profits with tearing down the century-old building and replace it by a newly more energy-efficient one solely on that basis-ignore what side-effect would be produced after conducting this action. Perhaps an additional building could be established to supplement the old town hall. Perhaps, though adding the most advanced energy-efficient equipments to this supplementary building, the total cost still lower than building a large town hall. Moreover, this plan can protect the century-old town hall and provide citizens a new building as well. It is possible that many travelers that visit the city can admire this building with its historical and aesthetical values but not regret for its disappearance.

In conclusion, any legitimate survey must be strictly controlled and include a broad cross-section population, furthermore, offering several solid evidence is necessary to make this argument more convincible. The writer of this editorial fails to do that.
to Berlinbear,我没写和你一样的攻击点，因为觉得你的已经很好了！！
https://bbs.gter.net/viewthre ... type%26typeid%3D102