Argument 164

TOPIC: ARGUMENT164 - Claitown University needs both affordable housing for its students and a way to fund the building of such housing. The best solution to this problem is to commission a famous architect known for experimental and futuristic buildings. It is common knowledge that tourists are willing to pay money to tour some of the architect's buildings, so it can be expected that tourists will want to visit this new building. The income from the fees charged to tourists will soon cover the building costs. Furthermore, such a building will attract new students as well as donations from alumni. And even though such a building will be much larger than our current need for student housing, part of the building can be used as office space.

WORDS: 460 TIME: 00:30:00 DATE: 2008-4-8 14:39:23

In this argument, the speaker asserts that Claitown University should hire an illustrious architect known for experimental and futuristic architecture to construct a brand-new building in order to cater students' needs. To substantiate this culmination, the speaker chiefly lists a few benefits of inviting a prominent architect and predicts that new housing will no doubt increase financial revenue. However, close scrutiny of evidence unveils that this argument actually suffers from several critical blemishes, as discussed below.

To begin with, whether tourists will surely be eager to pay money to visit a new housing built by the distinguished architect is questionable, and is not convincing as the arguer stands. Though tourists prefer some existed architectures which have been finished by the engineer, the new housing might nevertheless be an uninspired effort, which thus will not attract people's attention. Moreover, the new housing is supposed to be resided by university students; therefore this building may not suitable for visit by people outside campus.

Secondly, the speaker unfairly assumes that the income from the fees charged to tourists will doubtlessly outnumber the cost of constructing such a building, which lacks sufficient and powerful evidence. After all, the number of tourists who are likely to pay a visit to Claitown is unknown. Perhaps Claitown is not an ideal resort for tour viewing, which would otherwise undermine the conclusion. In addition, supposing that the money charged to tourists exceeds the ability of people, comprehensive income thus is not guaranteed.

Thirdly, whether new students can afford to dwell in such a new housing is questionable. It is highly possible that some students' family circumstances are not so wealthy that they prefer to living in old housings. Besides, the speaker fails to show any reason why alumni should donate to building a new dorm for Claitown University. This presumption would be further discredited if graduates from Claitown University work for unpromising corporations. Moreover, since the new building is constructed for the use of dwelling, it is quite skeptic that the new housing can be shaped to cater office's need. Furthermore, professors who work in that dorm would have to move out, supposing the enrollment of Claitown University sharply increases next year, which may make faculty uncomfortable.

In summary, this argument indeed suffers from a few vital fallacies, as discussed above, and is not as cogent as the arguer advocates. To solidify the verdict, the speaker would have to demonstrate that innumerous tourists are planning to visit that fresh housing and enough financial income is secured, and further prove that students will be glad to live in this dorm. Without considering and obviating those factors aforementioned, it is too cursory of the arguer to arrive at the conclusion. Consequently, we need more detailed information to better evaluate this statement.