[a习作temp] Argument32 请评！这么Argue可以吗？多谢！ [复制链接]

snowman
UID: 189980

寄托新兵

Rank: 2

声望: 0
寄托币: 235
注册时间: 2004-12-21
精华: 0
帖子: 0

电梯直达

楼主

发表于 2004-12-21 12:59:11 |只看该作者 |倒序浏览

Argument32: The following appeared in a proposal from the economic minister of the country of Paraterra. [42]
“In order to strengthen its lagging economy, last year the government of the nearby country of Bellegeda 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.”

In this proposal the author attempts to convince us that in order to provide more income for the population of Paraterra and preserve the nature of their country they should hire the current director of Bellegea’s National Tourism Office as a consultant for the campaign. For the first glance, it seems somewhat reasonable, but after a deeper substantiating the claim, we find the evidences provided by the author are too weak to support the decision. I will attempt a more insightful analysis of some aspects about this argument.

First of all, the author is based on a false analogy. Supposing that Developing Ecotourism may be suitable for Bellegeda and even can augment its income, but the author has not provided any evidence that Ecotorism is also suitable for Paraterra. Perhaps there are no natural environmental conditions for Paraterra to develop Econtourism.

In the second place, the author groundlessly assumes that the number of foreign visitors arriving at Bellegea’s main airport doubled bears some relation to the total number of foreign visitors. We cannot exclude the possibility that other airports in Bellegeda have been on repairing or rebuilding during this year, and only this airport can be used. For some reason, the total number of foreign visitors is not increased, on the contrary, decreased. The same as we have not received information that the 10 percent increase of per capita income was provided directly by the ecotorism, perhaps it was provided by other economical fields. Further more, in order to develop econtourism, the government has to add fund to improve the environmental conditions, to add some kinds of public facilities, can we guarantee that the income of ecoturism will covering the expense? And either can we assure that the natural environment must be preserved better than before, because visitors increased, accordingly they will create more rubbish, and the more visitors come the more destructions the natural environment will bear.

Finally, from information mentioned in the proposal anyone cannot confirm that there is a cause-and-effect relationship between the increased number of visitors if it has and the advertising campaign. Even if we tend to make advertising campaign, the director of Bellegea’s National Tourism Office will not be the priority, since the director may be familiar with Bellegea but there is no evidence informing us that he also familiar with Paraterra. For the successful rate in an activity is a function of the familiarity in this activity.

In sum, this proposal is not persuasive at it stands. To strengthen the proposal, the author would have to provide cause-and-effect evidences to correlate with the conclusion, thereby strongly supporting the argument.