[a习作temp] argument25 [TSUBASA] by snail8843 [复制链接]

snail8843
UID: 2516929

初级会员

Rank: 3 Rank: 3

声望: 14
寄托币: 833
注册时间: 2008-7-16
精华: 0
帖子: 0

电梯直达

楼主

发表于 2009-7-14 22:32:55 |只看该作者 |倒序浏览

Merely based on insufficient evidence and suspicious assumptions, the author recommends that to adopt the similar strategy to Ocean View (OV) is the best way for Hopewell (H) to improve economy. In order to support the claim, the author points out the evidence that tourism has increased and new business have opened in the town of OV after the town of OV built a municipal golf course and resort hotel. In addition, the author indicates that the tax revenues increased greatly after the implement of the strategy. However, there are some flaws in the argument.

First of all, the author fails to establish a casual relationship between the current prosperous economy and the strategy. Perhaps the tourists although traveled to OV, they did not went to the golf course and resort hotel. Or perhaps the new business has nothing to do with the golf course and resort hotel. For the increase in tax revenues, it might be attributable to some other factors. Perhaps industrial development rather than tourism contributes to the increase in tax revenues. Without ruling out these possibilities, the casual relationship cannot be well established.

Secondly, even if the foregoing assumption can come to existence, the author fails to substantiate that H will benefit from the strategy as OV. The two towns may not be comparable in some aspects. Perhaps there are some differences in development orientation between the two towns. For example, perhaps H is not a town characterized by tourism. By contrast, the economy of H is mainly attributable to some other factors such as industry, agriculture. In these circumstances, the strategy might be not suitable for H.

Finally, even if all the foregoing assumptions can be well supported, the author might wrongly assert that this strategy is the best way to stimulate economy. The author fails to compare this strategy with other ways which might be more effective than the strategy. For example, perhaps developing some other industries such as banking business, high-tech industry can benefit H better. Or perhaps some other ways related to tourism, such as exploitation of ecotourism, natural landscapes is more beneficial to H. In short, without a comparison between different strategies, the author's conclusion is unpersuasive.

In sum, the author' recommendation is unconvincing. In order to strengthen the claim, the author must conceive me that the economic development of OV is attributable to the strategy, and that H will benefit from the strategy as OV considering some potential differences between the two towns. In addition, the author must make a comparison between different strategies to prove that the strategy adapted by OV is the best way to stimulate economy.