帮我改作文，和你分享我的GRE资料！

ahjimmy617UID: 2495963

TOPIC: ARGUMENT30 - According to information recently reported in the Eliottown Gazette, the number of people who travel to Eliottown has increased significantly over the past several years. So far this year over 100,000 people have arrived on flights to Eliottown's airport, compared with only 80,000 last year and 40,000 the year before. Eliottown's train station has received more than 50,000 passengers this year, compared with less than 40,000 last year and 20,000 the year before. Clearly tourism in Eliottown has been increasing, thanks to the new Central Park and Museum of Modern Art that opened last year. Therefore, the funding for the park and museum should be increased significantly.

改过之后请留下E-mail, 众多资料和你分享！


in this argument the author recommends that the funding for the park and museum should be increased significantly. to substantiate his recommendation, the proponent points out according to a report in the Eliottown Gazette, the number of people who visit Eliottown has increased dramatically, which presents itself a constant rise in the number of people who have arrived on flight in past 3 years, and the people who arrived on train also increased in the past 3 years. so the author deduces all these increases are attributable to the new Central park and Museum of modern art that opened last year. close scrutiny of the reasoning reveals several fallacies which render the argument unconvincing as it stands.

in the first place, the fact that people who visit Eliottown increased does not amounts to a rise in the number of tourists. perhaps, the vast majority of the visitors are business man who shows little enthusiasm to the scenic sites, such as the central park and museum of modern art as the author mentioned above. besides, it is entirely possible that the 3 years' increase could amount to an aberration, and the trend could be reversed in the next year. if either scenarios is true, the author can not convince us that the tourists will increase in next year, let alone to grant additional funding for the central park and museum of modern art.

in the second place, even though it is true there is dramatic increase in the number of tourists. the author concludes hastily that the increase is attributable to specific scenic sites-the central park and museum of modern art. Perhaps, there are other scenic sites contribute to the increase. especially, the author mentions that the central park and museum of modern art that were opened two years ago. however, the trend of tourists increase started 3 years ago. if the author can not respond to these concerns, we can not accept the author's recommendation.

last but not least, the argument contains no evidence that can justify that the central park and museum of modern art deserve the additional funding. perhaps, the two scene sites do not lack any financial support due the previous investment. for that matter, it is entirely possible that the two scene
sides can actually make a profit because the significant rise in tourists. in short, without considering and ruling out these possibilities, the author can not persuade us to grant a additional funding to the two scene sites.

in sum, the argument is replete with logical fallacies. to better bolster his or her recommendation, the proponent should supply us more details of the report that can spell out the constitution of the people who visit Eliottown, whether the increase in travelers is attributable to two specific scene sites or other scene sites should be also re-evaluated. Most of importantly, we also need more evidence to gauge whether it is necessary to grant additional funding to the two scene sites.