首先仍然是题目: 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.'
To begin with, the author commits a fallacy of “false analogy” between Bellegea and Paraterra. Since there is no evidence pointing out that these two countries have similar situation, the author's conclusion sounds unconvincing. It is entirely possible that these two countries are of different type, it might be that Bellegea is a country with beautiful natural sites which is suitable for visiting. To the contrary, Paraterra is an economic country with few or even none natural sites. It is possible that most visitors in Paraterra are people who have business there. Thus we cannot convince that a similar situation will happen in Paraterra. [这段攻击的谬误是两个国家之间的false analogy。]
Moreover, the author fails to provide more specific information and statistic to substantiate the conclusion that the increasing of visitors was caused by the advertising campaign which they began last year. Lacking such evidence, the conclusion cannot render it convincing. It is quite possible that during last year, it was the terrible weather which made less than usual visitors there. Further more the especially appealing weather made more than usual visitors there. Unless the author can provide evidence to ruling out this or other possibility , I cannot convince what the author assumes.[这段攻击的是广告推广活动是否能够作为游客人数增加的原因。细心的朋友可能会发现其实游客人数是否真的增加也是一个可以攻击的地方。]
Further more, the author makes a logical flaw that more visitors will benefit its natural environment. Common sense informs us that the more people visit, the worse environment becomes. Since human beings and also all animals are creatures that create litter everyday. It is inevitably that visitors will take rubbish which might be unintentional. Therefore, the author makes it unsound that more visitors will lead to preserve its environment. [这个是我当时觉得并不是十分合适的谬误,大致意思是“生态旅游”可能会事与愿违。这个问题暂且不论。]
Last but not least, the author makes a false analogy again. As the author assume that Hiring Bellegea's National Tourism Office as a consultant will lead to success. Since the author does not provide the project Bellegea's National Tourism Office did in Bellegea which made its successful, and the similarity of these two countries, the conclusion sounds unreliable. [这里攻击的谬误是Bellegea的国家旅游部长能否在Paraterra胜任。当然细心的读者会发现这里攻击的深度不够。]
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.'
回过来看题目。因为作者援引的是邻国Bellegea的情况,那么我们先来看它的情况。“临近国家Bellegea的政府为促进其落后的经济,去年开展了一项对生态旅游的广告推广。今年到达Bellegea主要机场的外国游客数量翻了一番,人均收入增加了10%”,那么这里可以有两个谬误可找:1)到达主要机场的外国游客数量翻倍,是否真是来旅游的人增多了?可以反驳的是:达到机场并不一定表示来游玩,可能是转机;或者是来Bellegea的,但是却是为了繁忙的公务,而无暇顾及旅游的。因此今凭借这一个数据,无法说明Bellegea的旅游业发展了。2)即使Bellegea的旅游业真的发展了,那么也不一定是因为去年开展的生态旅游的广告推广的功劳。A fallacy of “after this, therefore because of this”。可能有其他原因,譬如游客的新偏好刚好在这里能够满足,而不是去那些在广告推广中提及的那些景点。
接下来,也是一样。“为增加Paraterra居的收入并保护我们有限国土的天然环境,我们也应该推广生态旅游。为保证我们广告策略的成,我们应该雇佣Bellegea现任国家旅游局的主任来担任广告的顾问”。这里还是两个逻辑错误:1)False analogy between the two countries,就像提纲里的第一点。2)是否要雇佣Bellegea现任国家旅游局的主任来担任广告的顾问?这里又可以分为两个小点:(1)广告活动的成功(在写之前我们可以继续做让步,承认它成功了),不一定是该主任的功劳,可以是其他人的功劳,还有其他因素的影响;(2)即使是他的功劳,但是在Bellegea出任广告顾问,由于两国可能有的差异,也不一定会成功。