In this argument, the arguer recommends that Paraterra should promote ecotourism to provide more income for the population and hire the current director of Bellegea's National Tourism Office as a consultant for the campaign. To justify the claim, the arguer points out that the population arrived at Bellegea's airport has increased and per capita income of B has increased during last year because of the campaign of ecologically sound tourism. After careful examination, the argument suffers from a few critical fallacies.
To begin with, the arguer makes a "after this, therefore because of this mistake" by assuming that the increase of visitors arriving at Bellegea's main airport and per capita income of Bellegea is resulted by the campaign of ecologic tourism. However, the arguer fails to rule out other possibilities that could have caused the two increases mentioned above. It is very likely that a international has chosen Bellegea as its exchange port, thus lots of pass-by passengers appear in Bellegea' airports. Similarly, various factors could be responsible for the increase of per capita income such as large amount of foreign investment from abroad, the adjustment of the government's economy policies and so on. Without this kind of information, it's a little hasty to get the conclusion that the increase of economy in Bellegea, if any, is caused by the ecologic tourism campaign.
In the second place, even if the ecological tourism really makes positive effects on Bellegea's economy, there is no warranty that the natural environment will be protected. As we know, no matter how cautious we are during the tourism, it is inevitable that the environment will be influenced. Furthermore, the arguer does not provide any information about the current state of the environment and the corresponding scheme Bellegea's government used to protect it during the ecologic tourism. Therefore, the conclusion that the natural environment is protected is unconvincing.
Last but not least, the arguer commits a false analogy mistake in his reasoning. Given that the campaign in Bellegea is success, there is no guarantee that it will make sense in Paraterra as well. As we know, the tourism of a country is determined by various factors such as the tourism resouces, the transportation system and so on. It is hard to imagine that a traveler will choose to walk thousands of miles to visit some common-look mountains no matter how appealing the advertisement about it is. The suggestion of hiring the director of Bellegea's national tourism office is more unpursuading. Firstly, it is possible the campaign is not charged by him. Secondly, it is pretty hard for an individual to design some campaign of a country without knowing the background of the country.
In sum, this argument lacks credibility because of the logical mistakes mentioned above. To make the argument more convincing, the arguer should at first provide more evidence to prove the cause relationship between the campaign and the increase of economy. Additionally, we would need more information about the design procedure of the campaign in Bellegea.作者: 负箧曳屣 时间: 2006-3-22 00:49:06
In this argument, the arguer recommends that Paraterra should promote ecotourism to provide more income for the population and hire the current director of Bellegea's National Tourism Office as a consultant for the campaign. To justify the claim, the arguer points out that the population arrived at Bellegea's airport has increased and per capita income of B has increased during last year because of the campaign of ecologically sound tourism. After careful examination, the argument suffers from a few critical fallacies.
To begin with, the arguer makes a "after this, therefore because of this mistake" by assuming that the increase of visitors arriving at Bellegea's main airport and per capita income of Bellegea is resulted by the campaign of ecologic tourism. However, the arguer fails to rule out other possibilities that could have caused the two increases mentioned above. It is very likely that a international has chosen Bellegea as its exchange port, thus lots of pass-by passengers appear in Bellegea' airports.因为一个国际组织选择了B做中转站，所以多数路过的客人出现在B？是否要讲明外国的客人是冲着international来的？或者你的international指的是国际比赛？反正这个pass-by让我不很明白。 Similarly, various factors could be responsible for the increase of per capita income such as large amount of foreign investment from abroad,
abroad是副词或形容词，去掉from.the adjustment of the government's economy policies and so on.好象牛人们都说要少用And so on Without this kind of information, it's a little hasty to get the conclusion that the increase of economy in Bellegea, if any, is caused by the ecologic tourism campaign.
In the second place, even if the ecological tourism really makes positive effects on Bellegea's economy, there is no warranty that the natural environment will be protected. As we know, no matter how cautious we are during the tourism, it is inevitable that the environment will be influenced. Furthermore, the arguer does not provide any information about the current state of the environment and the corresponding scheme Bellegea's government used to protect it during the ecologic tourism. Therefore, the conclusion that the natural environment is protected is unconvincing.这段写得很好呀
Last but not least, the arguer commits a false analogy mistake in his reasoning. Given that the campaign in Bellegea is success, there is no guarantee that it will make sense in Paraterra as well. As we know, the tourism of a country is determined by various factors such as the tourism resouces, the transportation system and so on.呵呵，and so on It is hard to imagine that a traveler will choose to walk thousands of miles to visit some common-look mountains no matter how appealing the advertisement about it is. 这句读着有点拗口。The suggestion of hiring the director of Bellegea's national tourism office is more unpursuading. Firstly, it is possible the campaign is not charged charge不是这样用吧？by him. Secondly, it is pretty hard for an individual to design some campaign of a country without knowing the background of the country.这段的内部，在逻辑衔接上，没有前几段好。还有，你好象用了很多know啊。
In sum, this argument lacks credibility because of the logical mistakes mentioned above. To make the argument more convincing, the arguer should at first provide more evidence to prove the cause relationship between the campaign and the increase of economy. Additionally, we would need more information about the design procedure of the campaign in Bellegea.这里似乎没说完，仅仅是个人感觉，呵呵：）