argument42 同题，看看没有根本性的错误

adugduUID: 2177983

The following appeared in a proposal from the economic minister of the country of Paraterra.
"In order to strengthen its lagging economy, last year the government of the nearby country of Bellegea 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." :D:D

The argument is short of convincing power. The arguer provides an example of country of Bellegea to support his/her assertion, which is might appear somewhat reasonable at first glance, but further reflection reveals that it is based on some dubious assumption. The arguer presumes that since the number of foreign visitors arriving at Bellegea's main airport doubled, thus the number of tourist mush also increase dramatically. That is not always the case. These visitors may not come to Bellegea because of the ecotourism, perhaps they come to visit the museums in Bellegea; or perhaps Bellegea held some big sport game like "world cup", stand on these situations, the ecotourism in Bellegea did not serve to attract foreign visitors as the arguer presumed. What is more, one can not contribute the increase of income to the ecotourism in Bellegea without consider and rule out other possible factors: such as booming in agriculture, or development in industry, or the breakthrough in the technology. Any of these scenarios, if true, would cast considerable doubt on the argument's conclusion that ecotourism bring much benefits and can also explain why the increasing of visitors in the airport: once the country is in the high speed of developing, the communication with foreign countries is unavoidable. Even if one assume the ecotourism is the main factor which cause these two changes, there is no information given by arguer to demonstrate that advertisement began last year lead to the blossom of tourism, one possible alternative is the tourism in Bellegea is keeping developing much earlier before last year and the advertisement make little contribution to the development. To sum up, failing in consider all these possibilities, the arguer make a hasty conclusion about the Bellegea.

In the second place, even if we concede account Bellegea's progress for their ecotourism, it is slapdash for the arguer to suggest promote ecotourism in his/her country too. Does Paraterra have beautiful, natural environment suitable for the ecotourism? Does Paraterra have necessary equipment, technology and experience to run ecotourism well, at the same time, prevent the natural environment from threaten by the mass of people? Can Paraterra government provide enough financial support? Can Paraterra provide necessary fundamental establishment? Can their airport work smoothly when face the circumstance of doubled number of foreign visitors? The arguer should answer these questions, and provide more persuasive evidence to prove that to promote ecotourism is available and profitable in Paraterra.

Last but not the least, even if we assume it is good project to promote ecotourism in Paraterra, to hire current director of Bellegea's National Tourism Office is not a definitely wise idea. There is no evidence to show the advisement in Bellegea helps the progress of the tourism. Even if the advertisement is a successful one, no information show the success is contributed to the director. What is more important, even the director work excellent in Bellegea does not mean he/she will do well in Paraterra since he/she is not a native any more.

All in all, the arguer neglects lots of other alternatives which make the argument short of the convincing power. If arguer wants to make the argument more persuasive, more information should be provided, meanwhile questions above should be answered clearly.

lycstUID: 175155

The argument is short of convincing power. The arguer provides an example of country of Bellegea to support his/her assertion, which is？去掉把 might appear somewhat reasonable at first glance, but further reflection reveals that it is based on some dubious assumption. The arguer presumes that since the number of foreign visitors arriving at Bellegea's main airport doubled, thus the number of tourist mush also increase dramatically. That is not always the case. These visitors may not come to Bellegea because of the ecotourism, perhaps they come to visit the museums in Bellegea; or perhaps Bellegea held some big sport game like "world cup", stand on these situations, the ecotourism in Bellegea did not serve to attract foreign visitors as the arguer presumed. What is more, one can not contribute the increase of income to the ecotourism in Bellegea without consider and rule out other possible factors: such as booming in agriculture, or development in industry, or the breakthrough in the technology. Any of these scenarios, if true, would cast considerable doubt on the argument's conclusion that ecotourism bring much benefits and can also explain why the increasing of visitors in the airport: once the country is in the high speed of developing, the communication with foreign countries is unavoidable. Even if one assume the ecotourism is the main factor which cause these two changes, there is no information given by arguer to demonstrate that advertisement began last year lead to the blossom of tourism, one possible alternative is the tourism in Bellegea is keeping developing much earlier before last year and the advertisement make little contribution to the development. To sum up, failing in consider all these possibilities, the arguer make a hasty conclusion about the Bellegea.这一段好长阿，最好分开来写吧，考官每天看n篇文章，读下来会晕的。语言我觉得很不错的，就是有的理由说的太不坚决了，批判就要坚决一些好~

In the second place, even if we concede account Bellegea's progress for their ecotourism, it is slapdash for the arguer to suggest promote ecotourism in his/her country too. Does Paraterra have beautiful, natural environment suitable for the ecotourism? Does Paraterra have necessary equipment, technology and experience to run ecotourism well, at the same time, prevent the natural environment from threaten by the mass of people? Can Paraterra government provide enough financial support? Can Paraterra provide necessary fundamental establishment? Can their airport work smoothly when face the circumstance of doubled number of foreign visitors? The arguer should answer these questions, and provide more persuasive evidence to prove that to promote ecotourism is available and profitable in Paraterra.理由满充分的，强~~句子好像简单了一些，几个can连在一起气势有了，但觉得不打准确

Last but not the least, even if we assume it is good project to promote ecotourism in Paraterra, to hire current director of Bellegea's National Tourism Office is not a definitely wise idea. There is no evidence to show the advisement in Bellegea helps the progress of the tourism. Even if the advertisement is a successful one, no information show the success is contributed to the director. What is more important, even the director work excellent in Bellegea does not mean he/she will do well in Paraterra since he/she is not a native any more.

All in all, the arguer neglects lots of other alternatives which make the argument short of the convincing power. If arguer wants to make the argument more persuasive, more information should be provided, meanwhile questions above should be answered clearly.
没有什么大的错误吧，分析都很到位，而且我觉得到这个深度就足够了
加油lz~

glxingUID: 2156425

What is more, one can not contribute the increase of income to the ecotourism in Bellegea without consider and rule out other possible factors: such as booming in agriculture, or development in industry, or the breakthrough in the technology.
有错误：without 后接动名词才行，不如改成without ruling out、、、
还有，在说其他因素的时候例子有些牵强： breakthrough in the technology就能使人均收入增加么？
不如直接说inflation

glxingUID: 2156425

刚写完，扔砖头把https://bbs.gter.net/viewthre ... &extra=page%3D1

vickeyyyUID: 2106179

The argument is short of convincing power. The arguer provides an example of country of Bellegea to support his/her assertion, which is might appear somewhat reasonable at first glance, but further reflection reveals that it is based on some dubious assumption. [下面的可另起一段]The arguer presumes that since the number of foreign visitors arriving at Bellegea's main airport doubled, thus the number of tourist mush also increase dramatically. That is not always the case. These visitors may not come to Bellegea because of the ecotourism, perhaps they come to visit the museums in Bellegea; or perhaps Bellegea held some big sport game like "world cup", stand on these situations, the ecotourism in Bellegea did not serve to attract foreign visitors as the arguer presumed. What is more, one can not contribute the increase of income to the ecotourism in Bellegea without consider and rule out[considering and ruling out] other possible factors: such as booming in agriculture, or development in industry, or the breakthrough in the technology. Any of these scenarios, if true, would cast considerable doubt on the argument's conclusion that ecotourism bring much benefits and can also explain why the increasing of visitors in the airport: once the country is in the high speed of developing, the communication with foreign countries is unavoidable. Even if one assume the ecotourism is the main factor which cause these two changes, there is no information given by arguer to demonstrate that advertisement began last year lead to the blossom of tourism, one possible alternative is the tourism in Bellegea is keeping developing much earlier before last year and the advertisement make little contribution to the development. To sum up, failing in consider all these possibilities, the arguer make a hasty conclusion about the Bellegea.[不错，感觉一气呵成，就是有点长，呵呵]

In the second place, even if we concede account Bellegea's progress for their ecotourism, it is slapdash for the arguer to suggest promote ecotourism in his/her country too. Does Paraterra have beautiful, natural environment suitable for the ecotourism? Does Paraterra have necessary equipment, technology and experience to run ecotourism well, at the same time, prevent the natural environment from threaten by the mass of people? Can Paraterra government provide enough financial support? Can Paraterra provide necessary fundamental establishment? Can their airport work smoothly when face the circumstance of doubled number of foreign visitors? The arguer should answer these questions, and provide more persuasive evidence to prove that to promote ecotourism is available and profitable in Paraterra.

Last but not the least, even if we assume it is good project to promote ecotourism in Paraterra, to hire current director of Bellegea's National Tourism Office is not a definitely wise idea. There is no evidence to show the advisement in Bellegea helps the progress of the tourism. Even if the advertisement is a successful one, no information show the success is contributed to the director. What is more important, even the director work excellent in Bellegea does not mean he/she will do well in Paraterra since he/she is not a native any more.

All in all, the arguer neglects lots of other alternatives[，] which make the argument short of the convincing power. If arguer wants to make the argument more persuasive, more information should be provided, meanwhile questions above should be answered clearly.

[思路清楚，语言也不错，值得学习.还有就是一些小问题。]

能帮我看看吗？

https://bbs.gter.net/viewthre ... e%3D1#pid1768322136

平都UID: 2195125

The argument is short of convincing power. The arguer provides an example of country of Bellegea to support his/her assertion, which is might appear somewhat reasonable at[the] first glance, but further reflection reveals that it is based on some dubious assumption.
The arguer presumes that since the number of foreign visitors arriving at Bellegea's main airport doubled, thus the number of tourist must also increase dramatically. That is not always the case. These visitors may not come to Bellegea[ not] because of the ecotourism, perhaps they come to visit the museums in Bellegea; or perhaps Bellegea held some big sport game like "world cup", stand on these situations, the ecotourism in Bellegea did not serve to attract foreign visitors as the arguer presumed. What is more, one can not contribute the increase of income to the ecotourism in Bellegea without consider and rule out other possible factors: such as booming in agriculture, or development in industry, or the breakthrough in the technology. Any of these scenarios, if true, would cast considerable doubt on the argument's conclusion that ecotourism bring much benefits and can also explain why the increasing of visitors in the airport: once the country is in the high speed of developing, the communication with foreign countries is unavoidable. Even if one assume the ecotourism is the main factor which causes these two changes, there is no information given by arguer to demonstrate that advertisement began last year leaded to the blossom of tourism, one possible alternative is the tourism in Bellegea is keeping developing much earlier before last year and the advertisement make little contribution to the development. To sum up, failing in considering all these possibilities, the arguer make a hasty conclusion about the Bellegea.

In the second place, even if we concede accounting Bellegea's progress for their ecotourism, it is slapdash for the arguer to suggest promoting ecotourism in his/her country too. Does Paraterra have beautiful, natural environment suitable for the ecotourism? Does Paraterra have necessary equipment, technology and experience to run ecotourism well, [and] at the same time, prevent the natural environment from threat from the mass of people? Can Paraterra government provide enough financial support? Can Paraterra provide necessary fundamental establishment? Can their airport work smoothly when face the circumstance of doubled number of foreign visitors?可去掉 The arguer should answer these questions, and provide more persuasive evidence to prove可去掉 that to promote动名词 ecotourism is available and profitable in Paraterra.

Last but not the least, even if we assume[ that] it is good project to promote ecotourism in Paraterra, to hire动名词哦 current director of Bellegea's National Tourism Office is not a definitely wise idea. There is no evidence to show the advisement in Bellegea helps the progress of the tourism. Even if the advertisement is a successful one, no information show the success is contributed to the director. What is more important, even the director work excellent in Bellegea does not mean[ that] he/she will do well in Paraterra since he/she is not a native any more.

All in all, the arguer neglects lots of other alternatives which make the argument short of the convincing power. If arguer wants to make the argument more persuasive, more information should be provided, meanwhile questions above should be answered clearly.
注意动词的形式，过去时和第三人称，动名词也错了好几次， 还有定语从句的关系代词别丢了

adugduUID: 2177983

我晕，这帖子大家是什么时候给改的，我都不知道啊，里面还有谁要改的？？估计都考完了吧？？？？？？？~~~~~~~