【Flyer杀G】小组-6.26作业 A 148, by Sean

柏拉图的世界UID: 2581296

TOPIC: ARGUMENT118 - The following appearedin a newsletter from a national astronomy association.

"Various sources are predictinghigher-than-average temperatures across the country next winter, including inSun City, the traditional location of our yearly winter conference. Higherwinter temperatures are sure to result in higher-than-usual tourism in SunCity, a location already known for its attractive beaches and good weather.Hotels will have fewer rooms available, transportation will be more difficultto reserve, and public places such as parks and restaurants will be morecrowded. These conditions are likely to significantly reduce attendance at theconference. We should therefore move our conference to a city less popular withwinter tourists."
WORDS: 485
TIME: 00:30:00
DATE: 2010-6-27 11:05:28

The author presented such a causal chain tothe final suggest to move their conference to a city less popular with wintertourists: (1) the predicted higher-than average temperature in Sun City (SC,for short) would result in higher-than usual tourism; (2) more tourist wouldlead to fewer rooms available and other inconvenience in aspects of traffic,parks, restaurants and so forth; (3) these inconvenience would turn SC not agood place for conference, thus the conference is expected to be held inanother place. However, there are several feeble connections, such as assumedcasual relation, in such a chain, which undermines the author's assertion alot.

Even if we admit that the prediction ofhigher-than-average temperature in SC is accurate, which means in that daystemperature does elevate, the result as higher-than-usual tourism stands nosolid ground. The author merely mentions that SC is a location already knownfor its attractive beaches and good weather, while such two factors don't equalhigher temperature. No evidence shows hotness would contribute to a betterscene on beach, and as I see it, usually tempearture in winter above normalwould lend any help to that. And the term of "good weather" is prettyvague, we have no idea whether tourists prefer a cool environment as a wintershould be. Thus, due to the author's to abstract introduction of the normalcondition, a conclusion that tourism would be promoted at the same isunwarranted.

Even on the basis that the tourists aremore than ever in SC, it is still dubious that the city would be crowded.Because, what we know is just tourists are more, rather than at the same timeconstructions for tourism in this city remain the same or less. Maybe thanks tolong-term of popular in tourists, government of SC amassed adequate finance,which consequently is capitalized to built more facilities in order to attractmore visits. If this is true, the author's worry about insufficient conveniencein this city is excessive.

Further, supposing that SC really lack enoughinstruments to provide to the conference due to many tourists, the author'ssuggest to move to another place with less winter tourism is arguable. This ismainly because he/she hasn't conduct any census or comparison among SC andperspective places. It is possible that some location else hold more rooms andbetter traffic condition, but whether services in that place is rather worsethan SC is an important question. Since service quality would largely impact onthe well-going of conference. Especially when the author proposes places lesspopular with winter tourists, it is fair enough to query whether these placesare actually better constructed for conference, in view of their inferiorreputation in tourists.


To sum up, every connection in the author'smajor reasoning is somehow not consolidated enough to support his/her determinationthat SC would not offer enought facilities for conference. Even if such determinationis agreeable, his/her final suggestion that another place would work better forthis conference need reconsideration as well.