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."

　　嘉文博译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)

　　参考译文

　　为了节省相当可观的一部分费用，Rockingham市一个多世纪古老的市政厅应予拆毁，代之以某些市民所倡议的更宽敞的、更节约能源的一幢大楼。旧市政厅规模太小，无法舒适地容纳市政府所雇用的全部员工。此外，旧市政厅夏季降温和冬季供热的成本极为昂贵。更为宽敞的新大楼将更为节约能源，与旧大厅相比，每平方英尺降温和加热的成本较低。此外，新大楼内的一部分空间还可以出租，从而给Rockingham镇带来收益

　　在本项论述中，本社论作者宣称，一个多世纪古老的市政厅应予拆除，代之以一座更为宽敞、更为节省能源的大楼。作为拆毁旧大楼的原因，作者宣称旧大楼过于拥挤，无法容纳市政府雇员，并且，此大楼冬季加热和夏季降温的成本极为昂贵。最后，作者宣称，市政府还可以通过将新建大楼的某些空间出租从而从新大楼那里获取收益。本论点无法站得住脚，因为它基于纯粹的臆测和个人看法，以及一种"得失所系"的输赢游戏。

　　首先，作者提及能源的节省，以及两幢大楼降温和供热方面的差异，作为拆毁旧大楼和建造更为宽敞的大楼的主要依据。当然，新造的大楼完全有可能来得更加节约能源--建筑物的节能技术在过去一百年中已获得了长足的进步。然而，作者却没能探讨这样一个事实，即旧大楼是可以进行改建或翻新，以便使其更加节约能源，其节能效果或许会与任何一座花合理费用建造起来的新大楼的节能效果同样的好，或甚至更好。作者同样也提到旧大楼规模过小，无法舒适地容纳全体市政府雇员。再一次地，对旧大楼可以进行改建或扩建，以便能容纳更多的雇员。在这一点上，市政府可能雇佣的员工为数过多，需要考虑精简机构。由于没能探讨这些可能性，作者的论点在很大程度上被削弱了。 此外，作者在其论述中还有一些其他的选择方案没能予以讨论。在不拆毁旧大楼的前提下，另一幢新大楼也可以建造起来，对旧市政厅构成一种补充，并且对旧大楼仍可以进行改造，使其变得更加节药能源。这将创造出"双赢"的局面，全镇民众一方面可以继续拥用旧大楼，另一方面又能拥有一座新大楼。此外，作者提到这样一种可能性，即将新大楼部分空间进行出租，以便为市政府赚取收入。这一点似乎表明，作者所倡导的是去建造一座远超过市政府目前实际用途的大楼。作者在单纯陈述新大楼可为Rockingham镇广开财源之前，必须进行仔细认真成本/收益审计，以确定通过出租部分空间所产生的收益是否能涵盖建造一座规模较大的大楼所需的开支。

　　最后，作者无视这座长达一个多世纪古老的大楼对Rockingham镇所具有的美学与历史价值。作者陈述道，某些市民曾提议建造一座更为节约能源的新大楼，但这位作者没有提到这些市民是否倡导将旧大楼拆毁。当作者在讨论Rockingham镇所能节省的"相当一部分费用"时，这位作者应该考虑到一座传统的旧市政大厅所能给一个社区带来的价值，无论是在金钱方面，还是在社区认同感方面。

　　总而言之，作者没能以其论述来说服我们，因为他(她)没能考虑其他一些有可能的选择方案，这些选择方案既能解决旧大楼的现有问题，又能保证Rockingham社区继续拥有这幢旧大楼。若要使其论点更具有力度，作者应该拿出一份成本/收益分析，对他(她)所提出的方案进行成本分析，并将它与其他选择方案--如对旧大楼进行改造，或建造一座规模较小的补充性大楼--的成本进行比较。没有这样的分析，该作者所陈述的仅仅只是一个无法令人置信的意见而已。