Claitown University needs both affordable housing for its students and a way to fund the building of such housing. The best solution to this problem is to commission a famous architect known for experimental and futuristic buildings. It is common knowledg

In the argument, the author recommends commissioning a famous architect to design the building that will be used as affordable housing for Claitown University. The author believes that doing so will polarize tourists, students and donations to the architects building however author has not given not given supporting evidences to prove his point which makes the argument questionable.

Firstly, a prominent architect would charge a considerable amount of fee that would add to additional expenses incurred by Claitown University. The author states that funds will start accumulating once the building is complete however he has not provided any evidence on the finance needed to construct the building.

Secondly author suggests that tourists will be interested to visit the architects building and the fee obtained from tourists will cover the costs incurred by University. The author has not given any evidence whether there is any similar building constructed by architect which has raised interests among tourists so authors idea of implementing the same would bring funds is somewhat questionable. Once the building is completed, the students will start using the same so tourists may not be willing to visit the building and watch only from exterior due to which the author’s plan to collect fund from tourists may fail.

Thirdly, author believes that the architects building will polarize new students and donations from alumni. The alumni would not be willing to donate considering that the building would be used for tourism purpose and not for educational and research purpose. The author does not take into consideration this fact.

Hence the ideas proposed by author are tenuous due to lack of supporting evidences. So the argument is not cogent.