The following is taken from the editorial section of the local newspaper in Rockingham. "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

The author has stated that Rockingham’s old town hall should be torn down and then replaced by a larger and efficient building; proposed by some of the citizens. The author provides certain reasons for the change. Initially, these reasons sound convincing, but as we look deeper into the matter, the reasons consist of many questions to be answered.

Firstly, author provides a reason in terms that the new building would be larger in size than the existing building. But it is no-where mentioned how large would it be than the current hall. The reason must have included the cost of preparation of new building and also the demolition of the existing town hall. It would have been possible that the rehabilitation of current building would cost less. Thus the pecuniary details comparing the preparation of a new structure and repairing the existing one should be included to sound more convincing. The statement that town hall is currently too small to comfortably accommodate the people is contentious itself. The author fails to answer the comfortably in terms of what? The answer to this question remains unanswered.

Furthermore, it is cited that the cost of heating the town hall in winter and cooling it in summer. But it is no-where explained that the new building would be cost effective; rather it is only stated that it would be energy efficient. It would have been possible that the current systems of heating and cooling must have worn out and thus it was costing more. If proper care of these systems was taken care of, say be some maintenance work; it may cost lesser again. The cost contrast between the change of these systems and the construction of new building should have been included. It is not mentioned how long the systems in new building will cost less? All these details are missing which weaken the argument.

The author also includes that some of the space may be possibly rented; which will help to generate income for the town of Rockingham. But it may be possible that no one would be interested for that place due to many reasons viz. it may not be good place for business or may cost a bit more rent. The author also fails to explain that, in what aspects the income generated from these rents will be used for the people?

To make the conclusion that considerable amount of money will be saved; the author fails to answer the questions raised above. Thus, the argument is based on fallacious assumptions which only debilitating the argument further.