argument 152 新尝试，确定自己的模板

crazyjooUID: 2805124

TOPIC: ARGUMENT152 - The following is a letter to the head of the tourism bureau on the island of Tria.
"Erosion of beach sand along the shores of Tria Island is a serious threat to our island and our tourist industry. In order to stop the erosion, we should charge people for using the beaches. Although this solution may annoy a few tourists in the short term, it will reduce the number of people using the beaches and will raise money for replenishing the sand. Replenishing the sand, as was done to protect buildings on the nearby island of Batia, will help protect buildings along our shores, thereby reducing these buildings' risk of additional damage from severe storms. And since the areas along the shore will be more attractive as a result, the beaches will be preserved and the area's tourist industry will improve over the long term."
WORDS: 477         

The argument is well presented, but not thoroughly reasoned. Merely based on the fact that replenishing the sand had protected buildings on the nearby island of Batia, a presumption that tourists have caused the erosion of beach and other gratuitous assumption, it is presumptuous for the arguer to conclude that to charge fee from tourist in order to raise money for beach maintenance will necessarily vitalize the area's tourist industry in long run.

Firstly, the argument rests on a unfound assumption that to reduce the number of tourists will alleviate the erosion of beach. Information concerning at least two aspects is scant in the argument. First, whether tourists have direct relationship with erosion of beach remains unknown. The arguer might observe the more garbage left by tourists on the beach. However, such kind of pollution has nothing to do with erosion. Second,  a myriad of factors might cause the erosion of beach. Maybe some corrupt chemical material increase dramatically in the water of ocean due to industry pollution. Or perhaps it is acid rain that aggravate the erosion of beach.

Secondly, even if replenishing the sand do protect buildings on the nearby island of Batia, the arguer cannot justifiably conclude that Tria will also gain similar benefit from this measure. Tria might differ from Batia in many aspects. On one hand, perhaps the erosion of beach happen in Tria is much severer than that of Batia. It is therefore highly possible that replenishing the sand will not preserve the beach of Tria. On the other hand, Tria and Batia may be also have difference in the location of building along the shores. Perhaps the buildings in Batia are much closer to the ocean than building in Tria; therefore they will suffer more from storms and erosion. For that matter, Tria has no need to replenish the sand at all any may considerate other measures.

Finally, the arguer assumes too hastily that Tria's tourist industry will improve over the long term.  For one thing, the extra fee may deter tourists and thus serves to be another anthropogenic threat to Tria's tourist industry. For another, tourists might not decide their destination in strict accordance with the preservation of the beach and the buildings along the shores.. When it comes to make a decision, he/she may take many other factors into consideration such as the quality of service, climate, environment and so forth. Had no provided relevant information to show the advantages of this island, the arguer's final conclusion is open to doubt.

To sum up, the argument is not persuasive as it stands. To make it more logically acceptable, the arguer should undertake a comprehensive analysis to make sure the similarity between Tria and Batia and whether tourists cause the erosion of beach and whether well preservation of beach play a crucial role in the progress of tourist industry.