This argument is about hiring a famous architect to build a cost effective building to house the students of Claitown University. However, it seems from the author's statement that the University does not have enough funds to construct this kind of building. The author's line of thought is not very convincing. He has not been able to give logics for his reasons. He should have gone in details of the cost of the new building and other costs and the source of this money.
This argument has many loopholes as the author is talking on the basis of his assumptions. First of all, he is talking about commissioning a famous architect, who might charge a heavy amount for his work. It will add a heavy burden on the University's budget. The author has simply skipped this line of reasoning. He has not included this expenditure in the cost. The author is assuming that all the expenditure related to the building will be taken care of by the funds coming from the students' fee, donations coming from the alumni and the amount paid by tourists to visit the new building.
However, all these are just assumptions. The author has not considered the possibility that the tourists might not be interested in visiting a building that is meant for students' housing. Once the students start using the building, tourists will not be attracted towards the building or they might be happy by watching it from outside only. That way there will not be any income from the tourists. Hence, the argument's claim fails to prove that a famous architect's work will generate income for the balancing of costs.
The author has not even explained the source of money to construct the building. The building will receive the funds from students in the form of fee and other funds only when the building will be in use. Hence, this argument holds base only if the architect agrees to take his payment later on and the supplier also supplies the construction material without taking any advance.
Further, the author has talked about attracting new students and the old students who can make donations. However, he has not provided any evidence to support his views neither he has given any example of some other university. It might be possible that the old alumni are more attached to the existing building. Therefore, one cannot accept this conclusion without any proof.
In short, we can say that the author could not support his argument. He has not supplied any evidence to prove his point. He should have studied similar cases of other college buildings that were designed by famous architects and tourists are interested in visiting and paying to watch them. The author should also have emphasized on the detailed explanation of the financial aspects of the building project. A survey of old students and alumni also would have been a good idea as then we will know how interested students are to make donations.
This
argument
is about hiring a
famous
architect
to build a
cost
effective
building
to
house
the
students
of
Claitown
University.
However
, it seems from the author's statement that the University does not have
enough
funds to construct this kind of
building
. The author's line of
thought
is not
very
convincing. He has not been able to give logics for his reasons. He should have gone in
details
of the
cost
of the new
building
and
other
costs
and the source of this money.
This
argument
has
many
loopholes as the
author
is talking on the basis of his assumptions.
First of all
, he is talking about commissioning a
famous
architect
, who
might
charge a heavy amount for his work. It will
add
a heavy burden on the University's budget. The
author
has
simply
skipped this line of reasoning. He has not included this expenditure in the
cost
. The
author
is assuming that all the expenditure related to the
building
will
be taken
care of by the funds coming from the students' fee, donations coming from the alumni and the amount paid by
tourists
to visit the new building.
However
, all these are
just
assumptions. The
author
has not considered the possibility that the
tourists
might
not
be interested
in visiting a
building
that
is meant
for students' housing. Once the
students
start
using the
building
,
tourists
will not
be attracted
towards the
building or
they
might
be happy by watching it from outside
only
. That way there will not be any income from the
tourists
.
Hence
, the argument's claim fails to prove that a
famous
architect's work will generate income for the balancing of costs.
The
author
has not even
explained
the source of money to construct the
building
. The
building
will receive the funds from
students
in the form of fee and
other
funds
only
when the
building
will be in
use
.
Hence
, this
argument
holds base
only
if the
architect
agrees
to take his payment later on and the supplier
also
supplies the construction material without taking any advance.
Further
, the
author
has talked about attracting new
students
and the
old
students
who can
make
donations.
However
, he has not provided any evidence to support his views neither he has
given
any example of
some
other
university. It
might
be possible that the
old
alumni are more attached to the existing
building
.
Therefore
, one cannot accept this conclusion without any proof.
In short, we can say that the
author
could not support his
argument
. He has not supplied any evidence to prove his point. He should have studied similar cases of
other
college
buildings
that
were designed
by
famous
architects
and
tourists
are interested
in visiting and paying to
watch
them. The
author
should
also
have emphasized on the detailed explanation of the financial aspects of the
building
project. A survey of
old
students
and alumni
also
would have been a
good
idea
as then we will know how interested
students
are to
make
donations.