[big fish] 3月26日 ARGUMENT152 by wowoyuweiwei

wowoyuweiweiUID: 2754055

In the first place, the author fails to convince us that the charge to the people who use the beach will stop the erosion. In our common sense, there are many reasons can cause the erosion. For example, the industrial waste which pollutes the nature seriously makes it hard to recover. This kind of pollution can lead the permanent erosion which can not be easily stopped by the policy as the writer suggests.

Secondly, there is no evidence demonstrating that the charge can decrease the number of tourists. It is the beautiful and special scene attracts most people to come here and they are willing to pay for the extra money in order to have a look. So this assumption is not logical as it stands.

To the next, the writer can not easily conclude that Tria Island can benefit if they do what Batia have done. There is no information about these two islands. Perhaps the problem in Batia is exactly the lack of sand while the situation in Tria is different. In Tria, the strong waves bring the sands away so simply replenishing the sand can not protect the houses along the sea side effectively. Therefore, the arguer makes another fallacy assertion.


At last, even though Tria successfully protect the houses, the areas along the shore may not more attractive as before. Because of the scene have been affected by human which can not as interesting as the nature one. Nowadays, more and more are fond of the nature beauty so it may fail to attract people any longer.

In summary, to bolster the idea, the author should demonstrate direct evidences to convince people that the charge can effectively stop the erosion and decrease the number of the tourists. Moreover, there should be more proofs to support that what have been done in Batia can benefits Tria as well. And the augur also needs to show that the policy can let the shore

jjooyyUID: 2704028

可以写少点段 3段，甚至2段 关键是列举清楚 分析到位～
另外 头尾大 body轻 我们issue可不是这样写的哦
贪多嚼不烂 。。