Topic- " 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 will 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".

Response:

Money,once again, become a hot topic entire the world. To earn money is difficult, to invest money deliberately is slight difficult but to save money is much more difficult. Nowadays everyone asserting to accumulate the money, either from their business, or from their service, either from defraud the people or from deceive the people. In the above stated argument, author claims that-" In order to save the 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."To this statement author has given many of the reasons which seems ,not proper to the end.Though his claim may have merit, but the argument is not to the point as well, for this, we cannot consider the argument as valid.

Primarily, the issue with the author's reasoning lies in his unsubstantiated premises. The first reason stated by the author is no more validated for the argument. As it is stated that citizens have proposed to make the larger one to accommodate, but there is no explanation link between the "employees" and the "citizens". Citizens need more space to live not the employees the town hired. The second evidentiary support seems to be incorrect is: the old town is too small for the citizens. The author, here, have to stated that if the space will be increasing for the accommodation then the charges will also be increase, so there will be rare possibilities to save the considerable amount of money from constructing the new large town.The author's premises, the basis for his argument, lack any legitimate evidentiary support and finalize his conclusion unacceptable.

Secondary, in addition, author makes two assumptions that remain unproven. According to the argument, the author would have to find out the alternative instead what he assumed. The first assumption he makes: the new, larger building would be more energy efficient. In order to state it, more the energy-efficient equipments, more will be its expenses.More the technology used to build the energy-efficient building more will be the expenses.which in result could not save the money as author needs to. Alternatively, author would have to repair the old town hall's heating system which would have been more efficient than to construct a new one, and would also have been save the money- the author would be going to spend on new town hall. The second assumption author makes: it would be possible to rent out some of the space for generating money. In order to state it, the new town hall is replacing the old town hall because of low space accommodation, so the larger town hall will only accommodate the already present citizens comfortably, not any new citizens wants to accommodate. There will be rarest possibility to rent and generate money from the new larger town hall. The author weakens his argument by making false assumptions and the assumptions link he creates between the old town hall and new larger town hall has proven failing to provide any solid evidence.

Although, the author is having various false unproven assumptions and false reasoning, but it doesn't mean the argument is baseless. Meanwhile, the author can provide the evidence like: old town would be reconstruct with new creative spirit, with spacious accommodation.Also the new larger town hall will be more furnished and more appliances. Although, it would let spend more for the reconstruction but as much as to construct the new one, also it will save the money, as it is the main aim of the argument. Also this reasoning could help to give the reasoning for well outcome and perception of the town hall, from the society. Though, the author is having several reasoning for the argument but these kind of reasoning can improve the argument's clarification, also author can have more research for argument.

In sum, the author's illogical argument is based on unsupported premises. If author wants to change the readers mind as good for his argument, then he would have to collect the evidentiary support and provide us. He should have to fix his flaws accordingly and present the argument as reconstructed. Without all these things, he won't be able to change the mind of reader for his poorly reasoned argument, which could only convince few people.