Argument152 第一次限时写，请大家多指点，谢谢：）

figogoUID: 175735

Argument152
------题目------
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.'
------正文------
In this argument, the arguer recommends charging tourist for entering Tria’s beaches in order to stop the erosion of beach sand and improve the area’s tourist industry. The arguer reasons that charging fees for public access to beaches would reduce the number of people using the beaches and raise money for replenishing the sand and protect buildings thus making Tria more attractive. However, the argument is not convincing for several critical flaws.

In the first place, the argument is based on the unwarranted assumption that the tourism bureau would be able to raise enough money for replenishing the sand. As the arguer points out, the number of people using the beaches will decrease due to the access fees. Maybe the access fees would prevent so many people from going to beaches that few tourists pay for the fees. For this matter, the revenue raised in this way is would not be sufficient to the purpose of replenishing the sand. In short, lacking other information concerning the tourists and the beaches, we cannot come to the assumption.

In the second place, the recommendation also indicates that replenishing the sand in Tria would carry the same result as Batia did. Yet there might be a myriad of variables that are responsible for the success of Batia. Therefore, although the strategy of replenishing the sand to protect the buildings is successful in Batia, this reality alone does not conclusively suggest that such a strategy would also be effective in Tria. It is entirely possible that most of the buildings in Tria, which are built far from the shores, are not affected by the erosion of sand in the shores. If so, it is not necessary to protect them by replenishing the sand and this action would be rather difficult due to the transportation.

Finally, even if we concede that Tria would achieve success as Batia by replenishing the sand, there is no reason to believe that Tria would be more attractive to tourists. Perhaps the buildings near Tria’s beaches that were built long ago are not in accord with the environment. In this case, it is the natural scenery of Tria that is appealing to tourists, not the buildings. Thus the recommendation would amount to poor advice because protecting them would not make the beaches more attractive but make things worse.

In summary, the argument lacks credibility because it relies on several unwarranted assumption. To make it more convincing, the arguer would have to present more evidences about charging the fees would produce sufficient funds to replenish the sand. Moreover, we also need more information regarding the environmental conditions of Tria’s breaches.

乒乓球爱上九月UID: 162925

两个都在呢，互改一下？
http://211.151.90.54/bbs/showthr ... 1255641#post1255641

lululiu8412UID: 195354

In this argument, the arguer recommends charging tourist for entering Tria’s beaches in order to stop the erosion of beach sand and improve the area’s tourist industry. The arguer reasons that charging fees for public access to beaches would reduce the number of people using the beaches and raise money for replenishing the sand and protect buildings thus making Tria more attractive. However, the argument is not convincing for several critical flaws.

In the first place, the argument is based on the unwarranted assumption that the tourism bureau would be able to raise enough money for replenishing the sand. As the arguer points out, the number of people using the beaches will decrease due to the access fees. Maybe the access fees would prevent so many people from going to beaches that few tourists pay for the fees. For this matter, the revenue raised in this way .is   删了
would not be sufficient to the purpose of replenishing the sand. In short, lacking other information concerning the tourists and the beaches, we cannot come to the assumption.

In the second place, the recommendation also indicates that replenishing the sand in Tria would carry the same result as Batia did. Yet there might be a myriad of variables that are responsible for the success of Batia. Therefore, although the strategy of replenishing the sand to protect the buildings is successful in Batia, this reality alone does not conclusively suggest that such a strategy would also be effective in Tria.  It is entirely possible that most of the buildings in Tria, which are built far from the shores,are not affected by the erosion of sand in the shores.    有点语法错误，你自己看怎么改好If so, it is not necessary to protect them by replenishing the sand and this action would be rather difficult due to the transportation.

Finally, even if we concede that Tria would achieve success as Batia by replenishing the sand, there is no reason to believe that Tria would be more attractive to tourists. Perhaps the buildings near Tria’s beaches that were built long ago are not in accord with the environment. In this case, it is the natural scenery of Tria that is appealing to tourists, not the buildings. Thus the recommendation would amount to poor advice because protecting them would not make the beaches more attractive but make things worse. 这段逻辑感很强，很好


In summary, the argument lacks credibility because it relies on several unwarranted assumption. To make it more convincing, the arguer would have to present more evidences about charging the fees would produce sufficient funds to replenish the sand. Moreover, we also need more information regarding the environmental conditions of Tria’s breaches.

感觉是很正常的一篇文章，主要特点是说理很强，逻辑感不错。

nickaaronleeUID: 183378

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.'
------正文------
In this argument, the arguer recommends charging tourist for entering Tria’s beaches in order to stop the erosion of beach sand and improve the area’s tourist industry. The arguer reasons that charging fees for public access to beaches would reduce the number of people using the beaches and raise money for replenishing the sand and protect buildings thus making Tria more attractive. However, the argument is not convincing for several critical flaws.

In the first place, the argument is based on the unwarranted assumption that the tourism bureau would be able to raise enough money for replenishing the sand. As the arguer points out, the number of people using the beaches will decrease due to the access fees. Maybe the access fees would prevent so many people from going to beaches that few tourists pay for the fees. For this matter, the revenue raised in this way is would not be sufficient to the purpose of replenishing the sand. In short, lacking other information concerning the tourists and the beaches, we cannot come to the assumption.（也可以谈一下，即使收费也不一定会减少游客）

In the second place, the recommendation also indicates that replenishing the sand in Tria would carry the same result as Batia did. Yet there might be a myriad of variables that are responsible for the success of Batia. Therefore, although the strategy of replenishing the sand to protect the buildings is successful in Batia, this reality alone does not conclusively suggest that such a strategy would also be effective in Tria. It is entirely possible that most of the buildings in Tria, which are built far from the shores, are not affected by the erosion of sand in the shores. If so, it is not necessary to protect them by replenishing the sand and this action would be rather difficult due to the transportation.（还不够深入，比如可以从建筑材料举例）

Finally, even if we concede that Tria would achieve success as Batia by replenishing the sand, there is no reason to believe that Tria would be more attractive to tourists. Perhaps the buildings near Tria’s beaches that were built long ago are not in accord with the environment. In this case, it is the natural scenery of Tria that is appealing to tourists, not the buildings. Thus the recommendation would amount to poor advice because protecting them would not make the beaches more attractive but make things worse.（攻击的不是很有力）

In summary, the argument lacks credibility because it relies on several unwarranted assumption. To make it more convincing, the arguer would have to present more evidences about charging the fees would produce sufficient funds to replenish the sand. Moreover, we also need more information regarding the environmental conditions of Tria’s breaches.（建议多攻击重点放在海滩，还有楼主有些语法和词法错误，加油~~~）