ARGUMENT 42, 我的第一篇argument

ppa007hotUID: 2756040

第一篇argument, 大家使劲拍...谢谢了先

TOPIC: 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."

DATE: 2010/2/11 19:02:47


The hasty minister suggested that Paraterra should develop ecotourism to increase the income per capita and preserve the natural environment of the country, just by following nearby country Bellegea’s footsteps. In order to achieve that, he also claimed to hire the same director of Bellegea to ensure the success of advertising. However, the experience of Bellegea could not be applied to Paraterra without further evidences provided.

The argument is based on an unsaid assumption that the ecotourism of Bellegea is actually promoted, which is not necessarily the case. The evidence provided that the number of foreign visitors arriving at Bellegea's main airport doubled may not caused by the development of ecotourism. Those foreigners could be businessmen coming Bellegea for international trade, or even not aimed at this country if Bellegea had turned into an international flight transfer station this year. In addition, the 10 percent increase of per capita income might be brought about by trade with foreigners or just by hard work of the people. The arguer inappropriately implies that there is a cause-and-effect relationship between isolated things.

Conceding that the ecotourism is actually promoted, it doesn't necessarily mean that it is the advertisement that attracts the tourists and makes the promotion. Nowadays almost every customer learns to be canny and is not likely easily affected by advertisement. A tourist on deciding where to go for a vacation considers the scene, weather, people, cost, time and so on, hardly the advertising video clips or posts.

Even the advertising campaign did work and thus the ecotourism was promoted, it is unwarranted to say the success could be copied to Paraterra. The government must consider all the conditions of the country including geographic landscape, the climate, already-existed ecosystem and etc. to reach the final conclusion whether ecotourism is appropriate for Paraterra. Simply making an analogy to Bellegea is not convincing in any means.

Last but not least, the employment of the current director of Bellegea's National Tourism Office can't guarantee Paraterra's advertising campaign is successful. After all, the arguer didn't tell us anything about what was the contribution the Office made to the successful advertisement, nor the contribution the director made to the Office. Without that information, the employment seems like a bet. What's more, supposing that the director were vital in the success of advertising, to hire him as a consultant still could not be a wise decision if he is a person of action rather than words and not good at giving advice.

AdelineShenUID: 2630498

下面是一个网上常传播的提纲，先给你做参考。

论断：论者提出我们非常应该推广生态旅游，并进一步建议雇用B国旅游办的现任经理做广告顾问。因为B国去年开始用广告推动生态旅游，今年到B国主要机场的外国游客多了一倍，而且它们的收入也增加了10%。

•论断忽略了一个前提，就是我们是否有足够的生态旅游资源。如果没有这方面的资源，或是资源不足以吸引人，一切推广活动和广告都是空谈。非常不幸，论者忽略了这一点。
•而对于雇用B国旅游办的经理做广告顾问的建议，其中有一个必需的前提是不被保证的。就是雇用此人有利于我们的广告，但论者既没有提供资料证明B国的成功是因为广告做得好，也没有提供证明此人了解我国的情况，这些资料没有，都不能保证雇用他会对我们的广告有利。
•论者论据不具有说服务。论者引用B国的成功经验，说到他们机场的顾客多了一倍，收入升了10%。首先B国的生态旅游不一定是成功的，因为到机场的顾客不一定参加生态游，而且收入的上升也可能是因为B国在其他领域的发展。其次B国的经验是否适合我们，论者没有给出任何资料，说明两国在生态资源、人文环境、国际地位方面有什么相同，这些都不是因为是邻居而必然相同的。论者引用的论据对于说服我们推广生态游和雇用广告顾问都没有说服力。
•论者结论太武断。论者说为提高收入保存自然环境，我们太需要推广生态游。但论者没有提供任何资料证明我们现在收入非常低，或是生态环境很差。另外生态游的开发推广若也不必然带来自己然环境的保存，还需要有好的措施。

结论：论者若要加强说服力，还应该提供本国的生态资源状况，是否能够吸引外国人来旅游。而对于是否用此人作顾问，还需要提供它国生态游发展的具体资料，并提供资料证明他对我国的非常了解。

然后写一下我的提纲，给你做参考。

1. B的成功不一定是因为生态旅游

2. 即使B的成功是因为生态旅游，也不一定适用于P。可能P根本没有那么多生态资源。

3. 即使在P发展生态旅游是合适的，也不一定雇佣B的广告顾问就有用。首先B生态旅游的成功不一定是广告的原因，其次不一定是广告顾问的原因，再次这个人了解B不一定能了解P

（上面这个提纲我只是写出了一个大概的论证顺序，具体分析参看上面那个比较具体的版本，只是上面那个提纲的顺序不大好。）

AdelineShenUID: 2630498

关于Argu开头的写法，建议去看看666版主的Argument开头的那篇文章

你这篇文章没有结尾啊，结尾还是需要的

ppa007hotUID: 2756040

3# AdelineShen

非常感谢！
我的思路主要是受这个帖子的影响：https://bbs.gter.net/viewthread.php?tid=274535&fpage=1&highlight=

关于开头，看了666版主的那篇帖子之后，我觉得我的确重述的部分太多了，开头应该以概括性地指出其错误为主，所以我改写了一下：

The hasty minister suggested that Paraterra should develop ecotourism to increase the income per capita and preserve the natural environment just as nearby country Bellegea did. However, the experience of Bellegea may not be applied to Paraterra without taking other factors into consideration.

关于结尾段，我又去看了ETS的官方范文，发现虽然大部分5分6分的文章都有结尾，但还是有一两篇没有写明显的结尾的。而且ETS的评论也没有提到过结尾。所以我在想，结尾最好还是要有，但也没有那么重要。

我这么理解可以吗？

landa629UID: 2666212

The hasty (at the very beginning the author sounds accuses the minister, which to me seems to be abrupt) minister suggested that Paraterra should develop ecotourism to increase the income per capita and preserve the natural environment of the country, just by following nearby country Bellegea’s footsteps (there is a phrase: follow suit). In order to achieve that (“to this end” sounds more idiomatic), he also claimed to hire the same director of Bellegea to ensure the success of advertising. However, the experience of Bellegea could not be applied to Paraterra without further evidences provided. (what about stating “copying Bellegea”?) (Too much paraphrase of the statement)
楼主的思维很严谨，可以说是步步为营驳倒statement。膜拜。

ppa007hotUID: 2756040

5# landa629

感谢修改! 你的语言好强呀, 有空帮我看看我的句子吧...
follow suit...to this end...学习了
这样改后果然要简洁的多...
再次感谢~