Argument42. 一个人，没来得及加组，恳求支援。

Dopamine163UID: 2716148

TOPIC: ARGUMENT42 - 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."

Argument第一次习作，字数455，耗时2小时。越写到后面，越觉着内容干瘪，用词造句也开始重复。还有，不知道写的是不是没分好主次。已经用Word检查了拼写错误啦。请各位指教。

提纲：1. 游客增多和收入增加不一定是开展生态旅游的原因。


2.即便生态旅游导致了好的效益，两国之间存在不同，不一定能效仿。

3. 错误推测广告使生态游成功。而且同一位顾问不一定熟悉不同国家的情况。



Before the minister make a decision the proposal, the evidence and reasons provided should be carefully examined. Actually, the proposal fails to present some crucial importations and thus is far from being cogent.

Firstly, the author implies that the ecotourism of Bellegea successfully promote the tourism of the country and increase the capita income in Bellegea, which turns out to be unwarranted causations. For one thing, the increase of the number of passengers at the airport does not prove that the ecotourism resulted in the boost in Bellegea's tourism. It is likely that a number of the visitors arrived Bellegea for purposes other than sightseeing. For instance, there might be businessmen heading for meetings frequently held in Bellegea, or fervent spectaculars coming to watch some international sports matches. Even if a number of visitors did travel to Bellegea for sightseeing, there was a chance that they were for other sceneries rather than the newly advertised ecotourism. Without ruling out these possibilities, the statistic is just too vague. Similarly, the author fails in considering some other factors that led to the increase in income. Maybe the rising revenue stemmed from the development of industry promoted by relevant policy, or some kind of entertainment such as lottery.

Secondly, even if we concede that the campaign had promoted the tourism and income of Bellegea, this does not necessarily mean that Paraterra will receive benefits as the author claims. The potential differences between the two countries are neglected in the proposal. Perhaps the natural environment and local culture of Paraterra are sharply different with those of Bellegea and not suitable for tourism. Also, it is possible that Paraterra, unlike the nearby Bellegea, does not hold enough natural resources for tourism development. In addition, there is no evidence that the ecotourism helps protect the environment. It is hard to tell whether the natural environment of tiny Paraterra can tolerate the coming tourism.

Last but not least important, based on the unsound assumption that the campaign in Bellgea was effective due to advertising, the author suggest that Paraterra hire the same consultant to gaurantee its success. However, there is no sufficient evidence to prove that the advertising played an important role in the campaign of Bellegea. Also, it is not mentioned whether the consultant is familiar with the situation of Paraterra. Thus, it is doubtable that the advertising policy will appeal to the visitors or improve the ecotourism.

In conclusion, the proposal ignores some critical information. It will be hasty to make any decision before answering some questions, such as: How many passengers were attracted by the ecotourism? What led to the increasing income? Does Paraterra possess the condition for developing ecotourism? Will the consultant competent for the campaign in Paraterra?