[a习作temp] Arg30请大家以5分的标准来拍下~谢！定回拍！ [复制链接]

ministry10
UID：2666141

寄托新兵

Rank: 2

声望: 0
寄托币: 120
注册时间: 2009-7-16
精华: 0
帖子: 1

电梯直达

楼主

发表于 2009-8-20 15:58:04 |只看该作者 |倒序浏览

本帖最后由 ministry10 于 2009-8-20 16:00 编辑

The author exerts efforts to propose that funding for the new Central Park and Museum of Modern Art should be increased significantly partly because the number of people who travel to Eliottown has increased dramatically over the past several years. He also cites the report in the Eliottown Gazette, noting that the Eliottown's airport and train station has received more passengers than they received last year and the year before. However, careful scrutiny of the evidence reveals that it lends little credible support to the author's argument.

First and foremost, the author fails to substantiate that the number of tourists climbs up by simply citing the statistics about the number of passengers the airport and train station received this year. It's entirely possible that an increasing amount of people travel to Eliottown on business instead of travelling this year than ever before. Or even it is possible that a certain amount of passengers arrived on flights to Eliottown's airport mainly because it's a transition airport. Without ruling out these alternative explanations, the author should not arbitrarily assume that the tourism has been increasing in Eliottown.

In the second place, given that tourism in Eliottown increases, the author indicates that mainly because the new Central Park and Museum of Modern Art that opened last year, the tourism in Eliottown has been increasing. However, he confuses a temporal sequence with a cause-and-effect relation. The mere fact that tourism increased after Park and Museum was founded does not per se sufficient to prove that the latter contributes to the former. It may be that certain major events, such as festivals, Olympic Games, concerts of super stars, have occurred this year, so that the an increasing number of tourists travelled to Eliottown. Moreover, park and museum were not founded until last year, therefore, if they are riveting places of interest to win over tourists, the number of tourists should mount at a faster rate this year than before. However, according to the statistics in the argument, the magnitude of growth of passengers between last year and the year before last is greater than that between this year and last year, indicating a lower rate of growth this year, a trend contradicting with the author’s assumption. Without eliminating these possibilities and accounting for the lower rate of passengers growth, the author's assumption that park and museum lead to the growth in tourism is unfair, rendering the conclusion unfounded.

In addition, the author neglects to substantiate his assumption that park and museum would suffice by itself to improve tourism in Eliottown since they were founded last year. Common sense tells me that tourists are more inclined to travel to places with unique historical background, stellar sceneries, and so on. Less likely will they be attracted to newly built park and museum. In short, until and unless the author could provide evidence to show that more tourists travel to Eliottown to visit park and museum, I cannot accept that these new sites rivet tourists.

In the final analysis, even granted that park and museum contribute to the growing tourism, the author fails to provide enough evidence to show that it entails funding for park and museum. It's possible that with this dramatic increasing tourists, park and museum themselves could afford theimselves or even make a good profit from selling tickets. If that is the case, the author's conclusion that the funding for the park and museum should be increased significantly is unwarranted.

In sum, the author’s argument is a dubious one that relies on a series of unproven assumptions: the tourism increases in Eliottown, park and musuem contributes to the increase and need government’s funding to fuction well. To strengthen this argument, The author should provide better evidence that tourism does increase in terms of the newly build park and museum. Even with this additional evidence, in order to properly evaluate this argument, at the very least, we need more information about the current situation of park and museum and whether they entailfunding for the park and museum to function well.