TOPIC: 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."

In this argument, the author concludes that Rockingham government should build a larger and more energy-efficient building to instead of the century-old town hall. To justify this conclusion, the author points out that the old one is too small to numerous employees. The author also indicates that it’s a high cost to work the old one . However, this argument suffers from several doubtful flaws, and is therefore unconvincing.

In the first place, the author indicates that the old building have no enough room to accommodate multitudes of people. But survey the argument, I never found the evidences to show that there are such number of employees in R’s government, so can’t I recognize the necessity to build a new one for more space. Unless more clear evidences, this conclusion is indefensible.

Secondly, the fact that less cost will be spent on the new building to heat and cool per foot is insufficient evidence to the conclusion which the new building will works with less money. It’s quite possible that the new one has lager space thus needs more money. Or maybe the new one needs many clean works then should pay more money to the cleaners.

Finally, the author fallaciously assumes that the government can rent out their room to gain incoming. Unfortunately, the author ignores the special works the government does. It’s merely impossible to let other companies or organizations work in the government building.

In sum, this argument is unpersuasive as it stands. To bolster the conclusions, the author must show that it’s really necessary to build a new e-e building with more space .To better evaluate this argument, we also need more information about whether the new building will be less costly than the old one.