Reasoning of an argument: (GRE) Feedback expected ()0-6

English as a Second Language Preparation for and help with the TOEFL® Test and
1

[b]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.”[/b]

Though the author has a novel intention and the best interests of Rockingham in his/her mind, there are many aspects that need to be considered before one can jump to the conclusion of bringing down the town hall.

First of all, the opinion of the entire population of Rockingham needs to be taken into account and not just the proposal of a few citizens who have come forward with this idea of a new energy efficient building. It might as well turn out that the town as a whole would want to preserve the old town hall as an architectural relic or for any other reason would not want it to be destroyed.

The author also claims that the town hall is a small place for accommodating all the people employed by the town. But the town hall may be big enough a space for an average attendance on any given day thus negating the need for a bigger space for the same. The author to back up his claim has provided no such data.

Even if the proposal to build an energy efficient building in the place of the town hall is passed by the citizens, the economic factors need to be considered before proceeding further. The cost of destruction of the building and the construction of the new structure might turn out to be a big burden on the administration of the town and subsequently on the citizens of the town.

Last but an equally important aspect is the space consideration for the bigger structure. The author has not touched upon the land availability at the site of construction. Also the new structure might be energy efficient, but will not serve the purpose if the total cost for the heating and cooling the structure exceeds that of the present building.

In spite of all these flaws in the argument, the author is right in his/her expectation of generating revenue for the town by means of renting out the space in the new structure. If the author can provide sufficient data in the economic aspects of the construction and also the figures showing the necessity for such a structure and the favourable public opinion, then his argument of building the new energy efficient building might receive some credibility.

TOEFL listening lectures: A lecture from a social sciences class

2

[b]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.”[/b]

Though the author has a novel intention and the best interests of Rockingham in his/her mind, there are many aspects that need to be considered before one can jump to the conclusion of /bringing/KNOCKING/TEARING/ down the town hall.

First of all, the opinion of the entire population of Rockingham needs to be taken into account(,) and not just the proposal of a few citizens who have come forward with this idea of a new energy efficient building. It might as well turn out that the town as a whole would want to preserve the old town hall as an architectural relic(,) or for any other reason would not want it to beING destroyed.

The author also claims that the town hall is TOO small A place for accommodating all the people employed by the town. But t The town hall may be big enough a space for an average attendance on any given day, thus negating the need for a bigger space for the same. The author(,) to back up his claim(,) has provided no such data.

Even if the proposal to build an energy efficient building in the place of the town hall is passed by the citizens, OTHER economic factors need to be considered before proceeding further. The cost of DEMOLISHING the OLD building and the construction COSTS of the new structure might turn out to be a big burden on the administration of the town(, and subsequently on ITS CITIZENS.

Last(,) but AS equally important(,) aspect is the space consideration for the bigger structure. The author has not touched upon the land availability OF EXTRA land at the site of construction. Also t The new structure might WELL be energy efficient, but will not serve ANY purpose if the total cost for the heating and cooling OF the structure exceeds that of the present building.

In spite of all these flaws in the argument, the author is right in his/her expectation of generating revenue for the town by means of renting out the space in the new structure. If the author can provide sufficient data REGARDING the economic aspects of the construction(,) and also the figures showing the necessity for such a structure and the PROOF OF favourable public opinion, then his argument FOR building the new energy efficient building might receive some credibility.
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
Not bad at all Sprasad.

Kitos. 8/10

3

how about this,
The argument published in the editorial section of a newspaper concludes that it is better to tear down that Rockingham City’s old town center and replace it by larger and more efficient building. The author bases his conclusion on a number of premises which could have made is argument more persuasive but at present it seems highly unconvincing.

Firstly, the author makes that premise that since it will cost much less to heat and cool the new proposed building during the winter and summers, the cost of maintenance of the building is more. Such an argument is highly flawed as a number of factors such as electricity, plumbing, cleaning, regulating the temperature of extra area as compared to that of the town hall etc, that add-up to the maintenance of the new building, may be much higher than that for the town hall and as the author does not provide evidence against the same shows his lack of consideration for other possibilities.

Also the author does not provide any evidence to justify the claims that the city will financially benefit from the construction of the new building. It may be the case that the construction costs for such a project may be very highly and hence to recovery of the capital Rochingham city spends on such a project may take its own toll and hence not aiding the city rather deterring it. It is also possible that the maintenance of the buildings may be much higher that the profit that this building brings to the table. It would be a better solution to simply renovate the old town hall to increases it capacity and help in regulating the temperature of the old town hall by installing better insulation.

The author makes his conclusion on the assumptions that the heating and cooling of the new building may be less costly as compared to the town hall and that the new building will bring more profit to the city. The author could strength his arguments by giving evidence that would substantiate his claims and therefore due to lack of evidence the readers of this editorial will scowl at the biased opinions of the author.