Argument 30,本人第一篇,3个小时,请大家给与宝贵意见!

gorillayuUID: 190436

从0点写到凌晨3点，好难产啊，不过终究写出第一篇了。感觉在句型、语法方面存在不少问题，错词已改。请各路好汉多提宝贵意见，谢谢！

30.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.

In this argument, the arguer recommends that the funding for the Central Park and Museum of Modern Art should be increased greatly. The auguer cites the fact that the number of people received by Eliottown's airport and train station has been increasing in the recent years and contributes it to the new Central Park and Museum of Modern Art opened last year. The argument seems well-reasoned, however, it contains several facets questionable and is therefore unpersuasive as it stands.

Firstly, the fact that the increased number of people arrived to Eliottown's airport and train station does not imply that the number of travelers to Eliottown rises at the same time. There is no statictics to show how many people in the 150,000 arrivers are tourisms. It is possible that only a small part of them are travelers, decreased comprared with last year, and the others are increased business men. It is also possible that, though people arrived at Eliottown on flights and trains increased, the total number of travlers still reduced, due to a significantly decreased number of travelers who arrived on automobiles, which generally transport more people than flights or trains. Therefore, More evidence about the increasement of tourism of Eliottown is needed to support the arguer's recommendation.

Even if the fact that the number of travelers to Eliottown is true, the argument remains questionable. The arguer assumes a causal relationship between the increasement of travlers and the new opened Central Park and Museum of Modern Art. But the argument fails to provide sufficient evidence to support the conclusion. It is not the only place that travlers could visit. In Eliottown, there maybe have other attractive places such as famous hills, sea beach, festivals that attract more and more travlers, not the two new resorts. In addition, when the number of arrivers by air and by train doubled the year before, the two buildings were not built yet, how can we attribute the growth to them? Maybe the arguer has absurdly exaggerated the influence of the two new facilities on the growth of travelers.

Another doubtable point is whether the increased funding for the park and museum is necessary and will achieve expected effect. Given the two new resorts are acturally attractive places and absorb a great deal of travelers, the arguer should take other factors into consideration. Is the significantly more money necessary or just needs a smaller part ? Whether the number of travelers reaches the up-limit of receiving capability that Eliottown can afford? Whether Eliottown should consider to build new buildings in other places and imporve the entire evirment of the town to attract more people to visit, instead of just two big, monotonous places? If above questions are not considered at all, the conclusion can not be safely drawn.

In conclusion, the arguer fails to establish a convincible argument that the funding for the Central Park and Nuseum of Modern Art should increased greatly. The arguer should make a down to earth survey about people's intention who come to Eliottown and give a detailed information of how the funding will be used, therefore fulfill his goodwill of the further increase number of people to Eliottown.

gorillayuUID: 190436

没人给改...自己顶一下吧

flyingwindUID: 189320

第1段不要引用论据，耽误时间，不如直入主题。
It is possible that only a small part of them are travelers, decreased comprared with last year, and the others are increased business men
谁说business men不能来看the new Central Park and Museum of Modern Art ？只能说是为了business而来，不能说是社么人吧。你的argu里面也可以argu啊
最后一个body好象每找对。
需要加油啊

gorillayuUID: 190436

businessman确实是个问题，谢谢！