Argument.42.【第一次写，请狠批，谢谢】
本帖最后由 colinxt 于 2012-7-24 22:51 编辑42
The following is a letter to the head of the tourism bureau on the island of Tria.
Erosion of beach sand along the shores of Tria Island is a serious threat to our island and our tourist industry. In order to stop the erosion, we should charge people for using the beaches. Although this solution may annoy a few tourists in the short term, it will raise money for replenishing the sand. Replenishing the sand, as was done to protect buildings on the nearby island of Batia, will help protect buildings along our shores, thereby reducing these buildings' risk of additional damage from severe storms. And since beaches and buildings in the area will be preserved, Tria's tourist industry will improve over the long term."
Write a response in which you discuss what specific evidence is needed to evaluate the argument and explain how the evidence would weaken or strengthen the argument.
-------------------------------------------------------------
It is quite understandable that people in Tria Island want to revive the tourist industry and develop the economy by stopping the erosion of beach. However, the author’s argument is flawed and the result, which is to charge people using the beach, may not be reasonable. The argument is full of susceptive assumptions and inferences, and thus, not able to convince the government to implement the charging policy.
First, the author assumes that by charging people for using the beaches, Tria’s revenue will certainly rise and increase the fund for replenishing the sand. This assumption may not hold true. Revenue is constituted with both quantity and price. If the demand for people to have a vacation on Tria’s beaches is elastic, which means the increase in the price is less than the decrease in the number of people going to Tria, the revenue will drop instead of increase. Also, the money Tria can appropriate to replenish the sand comes from the profit with costs being covered, not just revenue. Since the author doesn’t mention the overall cost of beach operations if the cost goes up, the profit will go down and reduce the amount of money the government can use.
Second, the author assumes that Tria Island has the same geographic conditions as Batia has. In that case, replenishing the sand may be effective to Tria as well. However, the author doesn’t provide any evidence to prove this point. Maybe Batia is facing less severe storms than Tria which can be easily overcome by replenishing the sand. Maybe the size of areas of shores matters because the replenishment needs money. Maybe Tria has many larger shores than Batia does so that to replenish the sand in Tria will cost a lot more than doing the same thing in Batia. So the increase revenue may not be higher enough to compensate the spending.
Third, the author believes that to replenish the sand will undoubtedly develop the tourism industry in Tria. But the argument is not persuasive because it lacks information about the overall environment of the industry. The improvement of tourism is affected by many factors, including the quality of services, the housing capabilities, the weather, and the pollution level of the shores etc. Since the current situation is unclear, we can be sure that the industry will develop by replenishing the sand. It’s possible that Tria’s beaches are not attractive even though the sand is replenished and buildings are preserved. Therefore it’s not effective to charge people for using beaches.
A clean and beautiful beach and its safe companion facilities will make Tria Island the best choice for vacations. Tourists who choose here as the place of joy will bring revenue and free advertisement. Tria may then develop its economy by the improved tourism industry. But the author needs a more well-formed argument to persuade the island’s tourism bureau to charge tourists for using beaches.
页:
[1]