ARGUMENT42 请大家多给些意见！~~有拍必回，谢谢！~~

BerlinbearUID: 207694

ARGUMENT 42 - 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."

Outline:
1、        到达B机场人数增加和人均收入的增加不一定是因为生态旅游。
2、        去年在B国成功的措施今年在A国不一定成功。
3、        B国的旅游负责人不一定能在A国再次成功推行生态旅游。

In this proposal, the minister of Paraterra recommends that in order to strengthen its lagging economy, the government should promote ecotourism.  as its neighbor Bellegea. To support the argument, the author cites some evidence, including the number of foreign visitors arriving in Bellegea's airport doubted and per capital income in Bellegea increased by ten percent. Although at first blush, this proposal seems reasonable, a close scrutiny will show that it suffers criticism as follows.  

For one thing, one such assumption of this argument is that an advertising campaign of the Bellegea which intends to promote ecotourism are efficient. To prove it, the arguer give the evidence that the number of foreign visitors arriving at Belllegea's main airport doubled, and per capita in Bellegea increased by ten percent. However, some alternatives are ignored by the minister. Such alternatives contains that maybe a large part of the  foreign visitors who come to Bellegea's airport are just pass through the territory of the country. Or it is possible that there is a important international machine exhibition so that many business men arrive to Belleage but not for the stake of ecotourism. Or perhaps the reason of the economic improvement in Belleage is that the entire economy of the country developed very significantly last year instead of the result from growth of ecotourism.

Besides, even if the promotion of ecotourism in Bellegea is indeed effective last year, it is still doubtful that this strategy would also very efficient to our country this year. There is a possibility that ecotourism is very prevalent last year in the world and Bellegea has compatible nature resource to operate this program smoothly, whereas our country is lack of such environment to promote ecotourism though both of the counties are tiny, and it is likely even worse ecotourism this year is not as popular as last year. What is more, some other superior tackles can be taken by Paraterra to provide more income and preserve the natural environment. For instance, in virtue of situation in our country, perhaps developing information technology business or capital investment would be much more effective.

What is more, a third assumption which the argument relies is that the current director of Bellegea’s National Tourism Office planed the whole ecotourism in Bellegea and could replicate the system successfully from our neighbor to Paraterra. However, if the planner and operator of the entire ecotourism program is brought from others, it is very hard to estimate that the current director could control the process and essence of the ecotourism perfectly and then benefit to our country. And even if the director are very successful in Bellegea because of ecotourism, there also lies a high likelihood that he or she would fails to copy the success in our country in that perhaps the director knows little about our country. So how could a great tour program operate perfectly without the correct conduction from its director? Thus, if our government hires the director regardless of reality, it may harm the economic development of the country.

In final analysis, the minister fails to offer a tenable argument. The arguer might have to offer more evidence to show that the increased visitor just come to Bellegea because of ecotourism. the strategy is also fit to Paraterra and the ecotourism success would also operate smoothly in our country.

wendy-wang821UID: 2167765

ARGUMENT 42 - 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."

Outline:
1、        到达B机场人数增加和人均收入的增加不一定是因为生态旅游。
2、        去年在B国成功的措施今年在A国不一定成功。
3、        B国的旅游负责人不一定能在A国再次成功推行生态旅游。

In this proposal, the minister of Paraterra recommends that in order to strengthen its lagging economy, the government should promote ecotourism.  as its neighbor Bellegea. To support the argument, the author cites some evidence, including the number of foreign visitors arriving in Bellegea's airport doubted and per capital income in Bellegea increased by ten percent. Although at first blush（什么意思？是想说明：第一次见到时吗？）, this proposal seems reasonable, a close scrutiny will show that it suffers criticism as follows.  

For one thing, one such assumption of this argument is that an advertising campaign of the Bellegea which intends to promote ecotourism are efficient. To prove it, the arguer give the evidence that the number of foreign visitors arriving at Belllegea's main airport doubled, and per capita in Bellegea increased by ten percent.（这一句是不是能改得更直入主题？） However, some alternatives are ignored by the minister. Such alternatives contains that maybe a large part of the  foreign visitors who come to Bellegea's airport are just pass through the territory of the country. （还是语言不够简练有力，考虑一下这个：Some alternatives have been neglected by the author completely. In fact, for example, perhaps part of such foreign visitors who arrived at B’ main airport just want to make a transfer instead of a tour in this country.）Or it is possible that there is a(an) important international machine exhibition so that many business men arrive to Belleage but not for the stake of ecotourism. (这个观点好，进一步批驳了人们来这里的目的有它因)Or perhaps the reason of the economic improvement in Belleage is that the entire economy of the country developed very significantly（very是副词，是不是应该改成very significant? ） last year instead of the result from growth of ecotourism.（本人觉得这句应该有个明显的提示词，以区别他是批经济增长, 因为前面主批的是来者的目的。）
（Moreover, the entire economical situation nationwide might be improved significantly last year, and ecotourism merely contributed little to the success of economical development in this country.）
Besides, even if the promotion of ecotourism in Bellegea is indeed effective last year, it is still doubtful that this strategy would also very efficient to our country this year. There is a possibility that ecotourism is very prevalent last year in the world and Bellegea has compatible nature resource to operate this program smoothly, whereas our country is lack of such environment to promote ecotourism though both of the counties are tiny, and it is likely even worse ecotourism this year is not as popular as last year. (这句理论很好，非常有说服力，但要再展开就更好了。比如说说P都是沙漠，天气恶劣，都是工厂等。)What is more, some other superior tackles can be taken by Paraterra to provide more income and preserve the natural environment. For instance, in virtue of situation in our country, perhaps developing information technology business or capital investment would be much more effective. （太好了，这就是深入地分析！信息产业可能是：information industry, 高科技产业：high-tech industry ）

What is more, a third assumption which the argument relies is（谓语是那个？） that the current director of Bellegea’s National Tourism Office planed the whole ecotourism in Bellegea and could replicate the system successfully from our neighbor to Paraterra. However, if the planner and operator of the entire ecotourism program is brought from others, it is very hard to estimate that the current director could control the process and essence of the ecotourism perfectly and then benefit to our country. (whether the director is qualified for being a consultant for the campaign is open to doubt.)And even if the director are very successful in Bellegea because of ecotourism, there also lies a high likelihood that(a likelihood lies in the fact that) he or she would fails to copy the success in our country in that perhaps the director knows little about our country. (a likelihood lies in the fact that the same scenario might be unable to be duplicated if the director knows little about the B country.)So how could a great tour program operate perfectly without the correct conduction from its director? Thus, if our government hires the director regardless of reality, it may harm the economic development of the country.

In final analysis, the minister fails to offer a tenable argument. The arguer might have to offer more evidence to show that the increased visitor just come to Bellegea because of ecotourism. the strategy is also fit to Paraterra and the ecotourism success would also operate smoothly in our country.

整体来说很不错，有理有据，如果语言再精炼一些就更好，希望楼主再接再厉，小生在此共勉了！希望共同进步，我的如下：:$
ARGU204
The following appeared as a letter to the editor of a farming publication.

"With continuing publicity about the need for healthful diets, and with new research about the harmful effects of eating too much sugar, nationwide demand for sugar will no doubt decline. Therefore, farmers in our state should use the land on which they currently grow sugar cane to grow peanuts, a food that is rich in protein and low in sugar. Farmers in the neighboring country of Palin greatly increased their production of peanuts last year, and their total revenues from that crop were quite high."
1，保证无效：科学研究只是希望人们注重健康，并非全国人民都爱吃糖。
2，他国的情况和成功在我州未必有效：土壤不适合，种花生要不要那没多水？
3，吃过多蛋白质就对人有益吗？可能是商人的推销。
Before prescribing a suggestion that it would profitable to use the land on which they currently grow sugar cane to grow peanuts to the general farmers in our state, the evidence given in the argument should be examined in several angles. The researchers who conducted the survey seem to have assumed that without examining any other factor that may have affected the results of the study.

To begin with, the most glaring error in logic lies in the fact that the author makes a gratuitous guarantee that nationwide demand for sugar will absolutely decrease for continuing publicity concerning healthful diets as well as side effects of having too much sugar. However, these facts does not consequentially follow that it has anything to do with daily needs for sugar, no matter domestic or overseas. Further, what if we consider some important terminology in this argument? For example, what does “eating too much sugar” mean? Does it imply that nationwide people have been suffered from its harmful effects? Or does it imply that researchers just intend to attention people the importance of healthful diets as well as lifestyle? The author offers no further evidence to convince us, so we have right to doubt whether the conclusion is too arbitrary to be informative.

Secondly, even if we accept the situation in neighboring country is profitable in increasing their production of peanuts last year, we cannot assume that this same scenario will work in our state. There are a myriad of variables that can contribute to the success of this type of improving revenues in P. However, pre-existing and uncontrolled local environmental conditions such as watering systems as well as soil conditions might cause many burdensome problems that would not be advantageous to grow peanuts. Perhaps the black soil in neighboring country is more fertile than ours. Perhaps growing peanut does not need so much water as growing sugar cane. Therefore, alternative causes might lead to outrageous expense what farmers cannot afford, again weakening the author’s suggestion.

Thirdly, even assuming the veracity of suggestion that it is suitable to use local land on which they currently grow sugar cane to grow peanuts, it is illogical to associate the advantage of growing peanut with earning money solely on that basis，let alone its correlation with improving residents physical conditions. Besides, a fact that whether it is also harmful if eating too much protein has completely been neglected in this argument. Since, the common sense tells us that healthful lifestyle means balanceable diets and sufficient exercises. However the author seems to tell us that eating protein is better than sugar, which undoubtedly is a nutriment giving energy to human body. For this matter, we have good reasons to doubt that this conclusion might serve to improve revenues in our state merely but not to eliminate harmful effects of having too much sugar. Thus to make the argument credible, the author should substantiate his or her conclusion with scientific experiment explanation instead of one’s own understanding.

In conclusion, any legitimate experiment must be strictly controlled and include a broad cross-section samples and offering direct causal relationship between planting peanuts as well as promoting profits is necessary. The research who write to the editor of a farming publication fails to do that.
(546)
链接：https://bbs.gter.net/viewthre ... type%26typeid%3D102

BerlinbearUID: 207694

多谢二楼的批改！~~先帮你看文章，再回来细看！~~