[a习作temp] 木木互改---argument42 谢谢有排必回 [复制链接]

咯噔
UID：2114564

中级会员

Rank: 4

声望: 0
寄托币: 1238
注册时间: 2005-7-8
精华: 0
帖子: 4

电梯直达

楼主

发表于 2005-8-28 17:54:28 |只看该作者 |倒序浏览

Argument42  第11篇让砖头来得更猛烈些吧！
------摘要------
作者：寄托家园作文版普通用户    共用时间：30分1秒    392 words
从2005年7月28日10时34分到2005年7月28日11时30分
------题目------
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.'
------正文------
In this argument, the author concludes that Paraterra(P) should begin ecotourism and employ the director of Bellegea(B) to make the advertisement. To support his conclusion, the author cites the increased number of people in airport and the per capita income of B.All these evidence reveals several problems which altogether serve to undermine the author's conclusion.

First, the author fails to establish a causal relationship between the number of people arriving the main airport of B with ecotourism. The observed phenomenon, in itself, says little than the 2 are synchronic to each other and that’s all. Consider, for example, the doubled number of passengers of the airport may due to the number of residents who travel to other places to have a holiday. It may also because that B is a transferring place of air. In addition, the 10 percent increase of per capita income can not illustrate the an increase in the income of tourism. Perhaps the decrease of residents leads to this increase.Or perhaps the salaries of people in the town has increased. Since all the reasons are possible, I can't accept the specious causal relationship given.

Second, the author assumes that B and P  are similar enough to justify the analogical deduction. In fact, there may be a lot of elements that differ between the two. Consider, for example, P may not have any beautiful views to develop ecotourism. Or it may also be possible that the transportation of P is too inconvenient for tourists to come. In addition, the director of B may also be unfit for P,since he may know too little of P  to make the advertisement as attractive as B's.

Third, granted that all the foregoing assumptions are justified, the conclusion may still remain misleading. The necessity of the implement of ecotourism is absent.  There is no evidence that the current economical configuration of P needs to be changed. Or perhaps P is well known for its universities and technological advancement. In this case, the town can develop tech-industry, which may also achieve what was due to the given method.

In sum, this argument is not well founded. Before I accept this conclusion, the author needs to provide evidence that(1)the situation of P and B is quite similar, (2)after the employment of ecotourism P's economics has really improved, and(3)there is no better ways.

[ Last edited by 咯噔 on 2005-8-29 at 13:31 ]