Argument42 [infinity小组]第十二次作业

mayaUID: 199038

TOPIC: ARGUMENT42 - The following appeared in a proposal from the economic minister of the country of Paraterra.

Argument 42 "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."
WORDS: 462          TIME: 30min          DATE: 2006-7-7

Based on some dubious evidence, the arguer concludes that Paraterra should promote ecotourism which is resembling with the same program in Bellegea. However, after careful examination of the argument, we could find that the assumptions relied on the evidence are unfounded and problematic.

Firstly, the arguer points out that the government of Bbellegea implemented a program called ecotourism to stimulate the lagging economy. And based on this evidence the arguer concluded that in Paraterra the government also should make a similar plan. Yet, the arguer overlooks the information about the relationship between these two different areas. It might be that this plan is not suitable in Paraterra but apt to Bellegea. Even if the program can be made, the arguer should not prove that it can make profit in Paraterra. In addition, the conclusion contained the aim of preserving the natural environment, while the evidence of Bellegea has not presented whether the plan can take effect in this case.

Secondly, the plan of ecotourism is began in Bellegea last year, yet the evidence has not presented its after-result. It is possible that it ultimately failed in a few days after its success at first. Even if the arguer indicates that the number of foreign visitors have arrived at Bellegea's airport twice times this year, the assumption that this is the cause of the success of ecotourism. It is entirely possible that these visitors were appealing to other places or trip programs given by Bellegea's government. Or, perhaps the visitors were just stayed at airport temporarily. In sum, the arguer's assumption that lots of travelers' purpose visited in Bellegera is to see this town's nature, or even the program can make money is unreasonable.

Again, the arguer points out the statistics of the economy in Bellegera. Yet ten percent per year income has not proved that it could happen in Paraterra too. The arguer also has not presented the whole income. It is possible that the proportion of income provided by this plan is just little. Even if the number of visitors come to Bellegea promote its lagging economy, the arguer need not consider that this same program can also stimulate Paraterra's economy. Other means for enhancing the economy of Paraterra have not been considered by the arguer. Or it may be that the residents in Paraterra have not interested in this plan, or even hated it.

In conclusion, the arguer presented some dubious assumptions based on some unreasonable evidence. If he/she want to convince me that the ecotourism can be success and will provide more income in Paraterra, the survey about the residents' opinions should be presented. In addition, the exact infromation of this plan's implementation in Bellegea is also needed. Otherwise, the conclusion of ecotourism taken in Paraterra cannot be accepted.