Rockingham's century-old town hall should be torn down and replaced by the larger and more energy-efficient building

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 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 would 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."

This editorial condudes that the town of Rockingham would save money by replacing its old
town hall with a larger, more energy-efficient one. To support the argument the editorial's
author cites the need for a larger building to comfortably accommodate employees, and the
fact that the proposed building would cost less per cubic foot to heat and cool than the current
building would. However, the editorial is unconvincing for several reasons.

First of all, even though it would cost less per cubic foot to heat and cool the new building,
because the new building would be larger the total cooling and heating costs might actually be
greater than they are now. Add to this possibility the initial cost of replacing the structure, and
in all likelihood the new building would not save money for the town. Besides, the argument
ignores other, potentially less expensive, means of reducing current heating and cooling costs--for example, retrofitting the building with a new climate control system.

Secondly, the editorial relies partly on the fact that the current building cannot comfortably
accommodate all the people who work in it. However, this fact in itself is irrelevant to whether
the town would save money by replacing the building. Besides, the editorial ignores other,
potentially less expensive, solutions to the current comfort problem--for example, adding an
annex to the current structure.

Thirdly, the editorial relies partly on the assertion that the town could generate income by
renting out part of a larger new building. However, the author equivocates here--on the one
hand claiming that a larger building is needed because the old one is too small to
accommodate employees, while on the other hand proposing that the additional space not be
used to solve this problem. The use of conflicting evidence to support the same conclusion
renders the argument wholly unpersuasive.

In conclusion, the editorial is unconvincing as it stands. To strengthen the assertion that a
new building would save the town money, the editorial's author must provide a detailed
analysis comparing the cost of cooling and heating the current hall to the anticipated cost of
cooling and heating the new hall. In this analysis, the author must factor in the initial cost of
replacing the old hall, as well as the additional rental income that the larger hall might generate.
Finally, the author must choose between two competing objectives: creating a more spacious
environment for current employees or creating a larger hall for the purpose of generating rental
income.