Argument Analysis 11

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."

My response:

The argument states that Rockingham's century-old town hall should be torn down to make way for a more energy-efficient building in order to save the town considerable amount of money. The reasons listed by the author are not logically convincing as the argument failed to address a number of important assumptions.

First, the argument assumes that tearing down the old town hall would save the town a considerable amount of money. This assumption might prove fallacious as the cost of tearing down the hall and building a newer building might end up costing more than keeping the town hall in the long run. Without reasonable statistics and breakdown of the costs, we cannot assume that tearing down the town hall will guarantee a saving in costs. Other assumptions that was undertaken by the argument included the statement that the town hall had inadequate capacity to accommodate the number of people employed in town. This argument is flawed as there was no mention of the fact that these employed people worked at the town hall itself. The sentence is misleading as these employed people could be working at other buildings or facilities, therefore not a strong indication of the inadequacy of space of the old town hall.

Also, the argument never considered alternative solutions to saving the town money. The argument states that it was costly to maintain utility bills of the old town hall and that the newer larger building would be more energy efficient. This is a contradicting statement as logically it should take less energy to heat up and cool down a smaller building. The newer, larger building might be more energy efficient, but it could be due to newer and more sophisticated heating and cooling appliances. The energy problem of the old town hall could be easily resolved by installing newer equipment, therefore possibly reducing the high utility costs.

Lastly, the argument supports the construction of a newer and larger building by saying that it would be possibly to generate more income by renting out space. Though this is inherently logical, it is not sufficient to justify the tearing down of the old town hall as the old town hall can also be rented out to generate income as well. There are other uses for the town hall to generate income including converting the building into a museum, or using it as a historical landmark to attract tourists to the town.

Thus, because of the reasons I have enumerated, the argument that the Rockingham's century-old town hall should be torn down and replaced with a newer, and more energy efficient building is illogical and unconvincing. Had the author taken the above factors into consideration, it would have rendered the argument irrefutable.