DEEPAK V

ARGUMENT

The argument states that,”Claitown university needs both affordable housing for
its student and a way to fund the building of such housing. The best way 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 buildings cost. Furthermore,
such a building will attract new students as well as donations from the 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.” This argument seems illogical and untenable.
The first obvious defect in the argument is that the argument has failed to specify
any information, in detail, about the architect who may be commissioned for building
housing for the students. Without any prior knowledge about, the architect or any of the
buildings built by such an architect, accepting the argument’s assertions that the building
would suit the needs would be illogical. The argument also fails to mention how much it
would cost to hire such an architect. If the fee of the architect is exorbitant it may not
help the cause of the University.
The most glaring defect in the argument is that this building will attract tourists
who would pay money to tour the building. This premise comes without any logical
assertions or irrefutable facts. The argument ought to have said how many tourists usually
visit this area where the Claitown University is situated and how many such tourists are
generally interested in experimental and futuristic buildings; since only if the tourist is
interested in such type of buildings would he pay money to have a tour of that building.
Tourists having no interest in such kind of experimental buildings would not part with
their money to have the tour. So the argument fails to substantiate its assertions with
facts.
The argument says that such a new building will attract new students and
donations from alumni. Such an assumption is fallacious. New students will be more
concerned with the amenities provided in the building than a new building constructed in
a different design. Also the argument is incomplete in saying that alumni would provide
donations for the new building. The argument ought to have given the result of a survey
conducted among the alumni asking them whether they would be willing to donate for a
new building or the argument ought to have cited some previous occasions when the
alumni donated for a similar cause. Not having done this the argument is incomplete.
To conclude, if the argument had addressed the previous defects then its assertions
could have been accepted as logical. For example, an architect fee could be a large sum
which would be unnecessary for a building which houses the students. Secondly the
argument fails to elucidate how the cost for the building can be retrieved from tourists.
Finally the argument does not clear the doubts whether the alumni will surely donate for
the new building or not. Having failed to address the above defects the argument becomes
untenable.