- 最后登录
- 2019-2-13
- 在线时间
- 242 小时
- 寄托币
- 507
- 声望
- 5
- 注册时间
- 2011-2-15
- 阅读权限
- 25
- 帖子
- 111
- 精华
- 0
- 积分
- 497
- UID
- 3008963
- 声望
- 5
- 寄托币
- 507
- 注册时间
- 2011-2-15
- 精华
- 0
- 帖子
- 111
|
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 reduce the number of people using the beaches and 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 the areas along the shore will be more attractive as a result, the beaches will be preserved and the area's tourist industry will improve over the long term."
The argument is well-organized, but not well-reasoned. Concerned with the erosion of the beaches along the shores, the author argues that charging people for the beaches will stop the erosion and bring positive effects further stimulating the tourist industry afterwards. However, failing to take some other possibilities into consideration, the argument suffers from some critical flaws in logic.
First of all, the author alleges that charging people for using the beaches will lead to the decline of tourists and collect funds for replenishing the sand. However, this assertion lacks information in detail to be more convincing. It is likely that the charging fee is so low that tourists are willing to spend money on it, and if it is in this case, the author’s assumption cannot be realized. Even assuming the charge fee is high, the sharp decline will follow, which will surely be a strike to the tourists industry, but then the funds of replenishing the sand will not be easy to collect because few people will choose there as a destination. The assertion could be more persuasive if the author could rule out the other possibilities and the consequences followed.
Second, the author assumes that replenishing the sand will both help protect the buildings along the shores and reduce the building’s risk of additional damage from severe storms, because the same measures carried out on the nearby island Batia has brought positive consequences. However, the author makes a mistake of false analogy, since the conditions of the two islands may not be the same. Perhaps the climate in Batia is rather mild, while the climate in Tria is rather harsh, with frequent severe storms and even tsunamis. Also, there is possibility that the buildings in Batia are built along the shore within a distance much farther than that of Tria, and the storms may not reach that far to bring such serious damages to the buildings than in Tria. Taking these factors into consideration, the author’s argument is flawed.
In addition, the author’s assumption that protection on the beaches and the buildings will lead to the prosperity of the tourist industry in a long run seems logical. However, chances are that the tourists are only interested in the beaches along the shore, rather than the buildings, which may not be attractive, or unique in style, or of historical value. If it is in this case, the author’s approach will bring the tourist industry’s shrink rather than prosperity.
In conclusion, the argument, while it seems logical at first, has several flaws as discussed above. The argument could be improved if the author could take the other possible consequences of the approach into consideration. It could be further improved if the author could provide sufficient evidence demonstrating the certainty of the benefits following the measures.
|
|