argument42 ...fantasy group...欢迎互拍！

mmeiwUID??2101523

TOPIC：ARGUMENT 42 - The following appeared in a proposal from the economic minister of the country of Paraterra.

"In order to strengthen its lagging economy, last year the government of the nearby country of Bellegea began an advertising campaign to promote ecologically sound tourism (ecotourism). This year the number of foreign visitors arriving at Bellegea's main airport doubled, and per capita income in Bellegea increased by ten percent. To provide more income for the population of Paraterra and also preserve the natural environment of our tiny country, we too should begin to promote ecotourism. To ensure that our advertising campaign is successful, we should hire the current director of Bellegea's National Tourism Office as a consultant for the campaign."
WORDS：433          TIME：0:30:00(做过修改了)          DATE：2005-9-5

The arguer concludes that Paraterra should begin to promote ecotourism and hire the current director of Bellegea's National Tourism Office as a consultant for the campaign, because Bellegea carried out similar strategies last year, and the income in Bellegea increased by ten percent. The argument sounds plausible, but it actually suffers from several critical fallacies.

To begin with, the arguer conducts a false analogy between Paraterra and Bellegea. Perhaps there are a variety of beautiful natural places in Bellegea for tourist to visit, while Paraterra is a industrial country which is not suitable for tourism, let alone ecotourism. Or perhaps the transportation in Bellegea is much more advanced than that in Paraterra, and under same conditions, the tourists will possibly tend to Bellegea other than Paraterra. Without ruling out all these possibilities, the arguer's recommendation just cannot be considered seriously.

Secondly, the arguer draws a conclusion on the basis of a poor assumption that the number of foreign visitors arriving at Bellegea's main airport doubled, and per capita income in Bellegea increased by ten percent are because of the ecologically sound tourism. It is quite possible that in the past year the industry, business, or transportation in Bellegea is improved significantly, as a result, the tax revenue has increased accordingly. Further, the arguer provides no evidence that the increased foreign visitors are to travel in Bellegea’s ecotourism. Perhaps they went there to participate international conferences which are more often last year than before. In absence of all these information, the arguer’s conclusion is too hasty to be reliable.

Finally, granted that the improvement of Bellegea's economy is the result of ecotourism, but the arguer's assumption that the successful campaign is the achievement of the current director of Bellegea's National Tourism Office is unfounded. Maybe the current director did not involve in the campaign at all, only let his or her subordinations to accomplish such a relatively easy task to him. Although it is entirely possible that he or she carried out this campaign, whether he or she would like to help Paraterra set out a similar one is open to doubt, because there is competition between the two nearby countries. Without taking into account all the factors mentioned above, the arguer’s recommendation that hire the director as their consultant is not convincing.

In conclusion, the arguer fails to establish a causal relationship between economical development and ecologically sound tourism. To strengthen the argument, the arguer would have to provide more information concerning the similarity between Paraterra and Bellegea. To better evaluate the argument, we need more detail evidence to substantiate the arguer's assumptions.

mmeiwUID??2101523

有道理，看来逻辑思路还得好好整理一下

weiweizhuUID??179352

The arguer concludes that Paraterra should begin to promote ecotourism and hire the current director of Bellegea's National Tourism Office as a consultant for the campaign, because Bellegea carried out similar strategies last year, and the income in Bellegea increased by ten percent. The argument （seems 这样更好地表示让步）sounds plausible, but it actually suffers from several critical fallacies.

To begin with, the arguer conducts a false analogy between Paraterra and Bellegea. Perhaps there are a variety of beautiful natural places in Bellegea for tourist to visit, while Paraterra is a industrial country which is not suitable for tourism, let alone ecotourism. Or perhaps the transportation in Bellegea is much more advanced than that in Paraterra, and under same conditions, the tourists will possibly tend to Bellegea other than Paraterra. Without ruling out all these possibilities, the arguer's recommendation just cannot be considered seriously.（Without ruling out the differences in tourism resource between two countries, the arguer's recommendation just cannot be considered seriously觉得这样会更好一些）
Secondly, the arguer draws a conclusion on the basis of a poor assumption that the number of foreign visitors arriving at Bellegea's main airport doubled, and per capita income in Bellegea increased by ten percent are because of the ecologically sound tourism. It is quite possible that in the past year the industry, business, or transportation in Bellegea is improved significantly, as a result, the tax revenue has increased accordingly. Further, the arguer provides no evidence that the increased foreign visitors are to travel in Bellegea’s ecotourism. Perhaps they went there to participate international conferences which are more often last year than before. In absence of all these information, the arguer’s conclusion is too hasty to be reliable.（你得想法和我完全一样）
Finally, granted that the improvement of Bellegea's economy is the result of ecotourism, but（可以去掉） the arguer's assumption that the successful campaign is the achievement of the current director of Bellegea's National Tourism Office is unfounded. Maybe the current director did not involve in the campaign at all, only let his or her subordinations to accomplish such a relatively easy task to him. Although it is entirely possible that he or she carried out this campaign, whether he or she would like to help Paraterra set out a similar one is open to doubt, because there is competition between the two nearby countries. Without taking into account all the factors mentioned above, the arguer’s recommendation that hire the director as their consultant is not convincing.（这段不对吧，文章是说某个部门使广告成功得，而不是某个头头啊。你可以先写不一定是这个部门是广告成功，还有依靠政府支持和其他媒体赞助。接下来再写即使B部门确实使B广告成功，但不一定使P广告成功）
In conclusion, the arguer fails to establish a causal relationship between economical development and ecologically sound tourism. To strengthen the argument, the arguer would have to provide more information concerning the similarity between Paraterra and Bellegea. To better evaluate the argument, we need more detail evidence to substantiate the arguer's assumptions.
你得一二个错误顺序和我正好相反
我是说我先说它提供得数据和证据不足以说明B经济确实增长了 第二段写B因旅游而经济增长不一定保证P 错误类比 三写不一定有B得广告公司 好像中间有点跳步是吧 再一二之间我是不是应该加上，即使B经济发展也不一定是生态旅游引起得这个错误啊  
即最后我改了自己得觉得这种顺序似乎更合理些
先说它提供得数据和证据不足以说明B经济确实增长了
即使B经济发展也不一定是生态旅游引起得
B因旅游而经济增长不一定保证P 错误类比
你觉得呢
我得文章是 argu42  https://bbs.gter.net/viewthread.php?tid=331923

foreveraUID??202035

我觉得作者开头提了advertising campaign。。结尾又提了。。。似乎他是在提倡这个campaign而不是生态旅游。。。

mmeiwUID??2101523

哦？跑题了？回头仔细研究研究！这个问题比较严重：（

freda_xinUID??2133401

呵，还没“当面”感谢你帮我批了第一篇Issue呢，I144，就是艺术家评论家那篇

foreveraUID??202035

The arguer concludes that Paraterra should begin to promote ecotourism and hire the current director of Bellegea's National Tourism Office as a consultant for the campaign, because Bellegea carried out similar strategies last year, and the income in Bellegea increased by ten percent. The argument sounds plausible, but it actually suffers from several critical fallacies.

To begin with, the arguer conducts a false analogy between Paraterra and Bellegea. Perhaps there are a variety of beautiful natural places in Bellegea for tourist to visit, while Paraterra is a industrial country which is not suitable for tourism, let alone ecotourism. Or perhaps the transportation in Bellegea is much more advanced than that in Paraterra, and under same conditions, the tourists will possibly tend to Bellegea other than Paraterra. Without ruling out all these possibilities, the arguer's recommendation just cannot be considered seriously.个人理解2个国家的错误类比重点应该是在advertising campaign上

Secondly, the arguer draws a conclusion on the basis of a poor assumption that the number of foreign visitors arriving at Bellegea's main airport doubled, and per capita income in Bellegea increased by ten percent are because of the ecologically sound tourism. It is quite possible that in the past year the industry, business, or transportation in Bellegea is improved significantly, as a result, the tax revenue has increased accordingly. Further, the arguer provides no evidence that the increased foreign visitors are to travel in Bellegea’s ecotourism. Perhaps they went there to participate international conferences which are more often last year than before. In absence of all these information, the arguer’s conclusion is too hasty to be reliable..仍然感觉和advertising campaign关系不太大

Finally, granted that the improvement of Bellegea's economy is the result of ecotourism, but the arguer's assumption 2个错误都写成假设错误有点重复的感觉。。。that the successful campaign is the achievement of the current director of Bellegea's National Tourism Office is unfounded. Maybe the current director did not involve in the campaign at all, only let his or her subordinations to accomplish such a relatively easy task to him. Although it is entirely possible that he or she carried out this campaign, whether he or she would like to help Paraterra set out a similar one is open to doubt, because there is competition between the two nearby countries.个人感觉这几个理由不是太有说服力 Without taking into account all the factors mentioned above, the arguer’s recommendation that hire the director as their consultant is not convincing

In conclusion, the arguer fails to establish a causal relationship between economical development and ecologically sound tourism. To strengthen the argument, the arguer would have to provide more information concerning the similarity between Paraterra and Bellegea. To better evaluate the argument, we need more detail evidence to substantiate the arguer's assumptions.


似乎题目中的核心是讨论advertising campaign的问题。。。

有时间看看我今天的作业哦~~~~

mmeiwUID??2101523

恩，批的好！
真大意！我忽略这点了（广告的作用）。

freda_xinUID??2133401

全篇看下来各个分析点分析得还挺到位，但组织各个逻辑错误时并不是很顺哦，个人意见呵:p
你的思路是：1. 二者可能不能做类比→（如果能做类比）关于B的结论可能是错的→（如果B确实是靠生态旅游赢利了）……→不等于我们要雇佣B的主任来担任广告顾问
如果省去省略号的部分的那一步批驳（P政府想采取广告策略正确吗？）直接去批想顾顾问，逻辑上的连贯性可能受影响，因为前文都没有讲到广告策略，另外，思路中的红字部分没有在文章中体现出来也影响了第一段和第二段间的连续性

To begin with, the arguer conducts a false analogy between Paraterra and Bellegea. Perhaps there are a variety of beautiful natural places in Bellegea for tourist to visit, while Paraterra is a industrial country which is not suitable for tourism, let alone ecotourism. Or perhaps the transportation in Bellegea is much more advanced than that in Paraterra, and(改even是否更好？) under same conditions, the tourists will possibly tend to Bellegea other than Paraterra. Without ruling out all these possibilities, the arguer's recommendation just cannot be considered seriously.