GRE作文范文 Argument-11

　　"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."

　　嘉文博譯Sample Essay

　　In this argument, the author of the editorial states that a century-old town hall should be torn down and replaced by a larger, more energy-efficient building. As reasons for the destruction of the old building, the author states that it is too small for the number of town employees, and that it is very costly to heat during the winter and cool during the summer. Finally, the author states that the town could receive income from the new building by renting out some space in the newly constructed building. This argument fails because it is based on mere speculation and opinion and a "zero-sum" game of win or lose.

　　To begin with, the author mentions energy efficiency and the differences in the costs of heating and cooling the two buildings as the main basis for destroying the old building and constructing a larger one. Certainly it is possible to build a more energy-efficient new building - energy-saving technology in buildings has advanced dramatically over the past one hundred years. However, what the author fails to address is the fact that the old building could be remodeled or renovated to be made more energy efficient, perhaps equal to that or superior to any new building that could be constructed at a reasonable expense. The author also mentions that the old building is too small to comfortably handle the town's employees. Again, the old building could be remodeled or perhaps expanded to be able to accommodate more employees. For that matter, perhaps the town has too many employees and needs to consider downsizing. By failing to address these possibilities, the author's argument is greatly weakened.

　　Furthermore, there are other options that the author has failed to discuss in his or her argument. Rather than destroying the old building, another new building could be constructed to supplement the old town hall, which could still be renovated to become more energy-efficient. This would be a "win - win" situation where the townspeople get to keep the old building but gain a new building as well. Additionally, the author mentions the possibility of renting out space in the new building to earn income for the town, which would seem to indicate that he or she advocates constructing the building to a larger size than what the town actually needs for its current purposes. A careful cost/benefit analysis would need to be performed to determine whether the extra income created would cover the costs of constructing a larger building before simply stating that it would be a moneymaker for Rockingham.

　　Finally, the author ignores the aesthetic and historic cultural value of a century old building to the town of Rockingham. The author states that some citizens have proposed a new energy efficient building but fails to mention whether they also advocate the tearing down of the old building. When discussing the "considerable amount of money" that Rockingham can save, the author should take into consideration the value that a traditional old town hall can bring to a community, whether in monetary or sense-of-community terms.

　　In summary, the author fails to convince with this argument by failing to consider other possible options that could both address the current problems with the old building while still allowing the community to keep it. To strengthen the argument, the author should have presented a cost/benefit analysis that analyzes the relative costs of his or her proposed plan as compared to other options such as renovating the old building or constructing a smaller supplemental building. Without such an analysis, the author is merely stating an unconvincing opinion.

　　(600 words)

　　參考譯文

　　為了節(jié)省相當可觀的一部分費用，Rockingham市一個多世紀古老的市政廳應予拆毀，代之以某些市民所倡議的更寬敞的、更節(jié)約能源的一幢大樓。舊市政廳規(guī)模太小，無法舒適地容納市政府所雇用的全部員工。此外，舊市政廳夏季降溫和冬季供熱的成本極為昂貴。更為寬敞的新大樓將更為節(jié)約能源，與舊大廳相比，每平方英尺降溫和加熱的成本較低。此外，新大樓內(nèi)的一部分空間還可以出租，從而給Rockingham鎮(zhèn)帶來收益

　　在本項論述中，本社論作者宣稱，一個多世紀古老的市政廳應予拆除，代之以一座更為寬敞、更為節(jié)省能源的大樓。作為拆毀舊大樓的原因，作者宣稱舊大樓過于擁擠，無法容納市政府雇員，并且，此大樓冬季加熱和夏季降溫的成本極為昂貴。最后，作者宣稱，市政府還可以通過將新建大樓的某些空間出租從而從新大樓那里獲取收益。本論點無法站得住腳，因為它基于純粹的臆測和個人看法，以及一種"得失所系"的輸贏游戲。

　　首先，作者提及能源的節(jié)省，以及兩幢大樓降溫和供熱方面的差異，作為拆毀舊大樓和建造更為寬敞的大樓的主要依據(jù)。當然，新造的大樓完全有可能來得更加節(jié)約能源--建筑物的節(jié)能技術在過去一百年中已獲得了長足的進步。然而，作者卻沒能探討這樣一個事實，即舊大樓是可以進行改建或翻新，以便使其更加節(jié)約能源，其節(jié)能效果或許會與任何一座花合理費用建造起來的新大樓的節(jié)能效果同樣的好，或甚至更好。作者同樣也提到舊大樓規(guī)模過小，無法舒適地容納全體市政府雇員。再一次地，對舊大樓可以進行改建或擴建，以便能容納更多的雇員。在這一點上，市政府可能雇傭的員工為數(shù)過多，需要考慮精簡機構。由于沒能探討這些可能性，作者的論點在很大程度上被削弱了。 此外，作者在其論述中還有一些其他的選擇方案沒能予以討論。在不拆毀舊大樓的前提下，另一幢新大樓也可以建造起來，對舊市政廳構成一種補充，并且對舊大樓仍可以進行改造，使其變得更加節(jié)藥能源。這將創(chuàng)造出"雙贏"的局面，全鎮(zhèn)民眾一方面可以繼續(xù)擁用舊大樓，另一方面又能擁有一座新大樓。此外，作者提到這樣一種可能性，即將新大樓部分空間進行出租，以便為市政府賺取收入。這一點似乎表明，作者所倡導的是去建造一座遠超過市政府目前實際用途的大樓。作者在單純陳述新大樓可為Rockingham鎮(zhèn)廣開財源之前，必須進行仔細認真成本/收益審計，以確定通過出租部分空間所產(chǎn)生的收益是否能涵蓋建造一座規(guī)模較大的大樓所需的開支。

　　最后，作者無視這座長達一個多世紀古老的大樓對Rockingham鎮(zhèn)所具有的美學與歷史價值。作者陳述道，某些市民曾提議建造一座更為節(jié)約能源的新大樓，但這位作者沒有提到這些市民是否倡導將舊大樓拆毀。當作者在討論Rockingham鎮(zhèn)所能節(jié)省的"相當一部分費用"時，這位作者應該考慮到一座傳統(tǒng)的舊市政大廳所能給一個社區(qū)帶來的價值，無論是在金錢方面，還是在社區(qū)認同感方面。

　　總而言之，作者沒能以其論述來說服我們，因為他(她)沒能考慮其他一些有可能的選擇方案，這些選擇方案既能解決舊大樓的現(xiàn)有問題，又能保證Rockingham社區(qū)繼續(xù)擁有這幢舊大樓。若要使其論點更具有力度，作者應該拿出一份成本/收益分析，對他(她)所提出的方案進行成本分析，并將它與其他選擇方案--如對舊大樓進行改造，或建造一座規(guī)模較小的補充性大樓--的成本進行比較。沒有這樣的分析，該作者所陳述的僅僅只是一個無法令人置信的意見而已。