Argument42 [Victors小组]第十二周作业 by solartorch

solartorchUID: 2244205

42The 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."

Words: 816  我的妈呀，我怎么写这么长。。。下次不能这么罗嗦了~不然时间来不及
While it seems true that the facts in the above argument contribute to the conclusion that Paraterra should begin to promote ecotourism and hire the current director of Belleagea's National Tourism Office as a consultant for the advertising campaign, the evidence and reasoning provided by the author are indefensible under serious scrutiny---mainly in four respects.

To begin with, the information of the increase about foreign arrivals and capita income in Bellegea cannot sufficiently demonstrate that the ecotourism in Belleagea strengthened its lagging economy. The author fails to account for the reasons other than the advertising campaign about ecotourism which are also or more likely to contribute to these phenomenal. Lacking evidence to the contrary, it is possible that the number of foreign visitors arriving at Bellegea’s main airport this year doubled due to other factors. For example, maybe Bellegea suffered from domestic turbulence last year and has just been stabilized from that commotion this year. It is this reason rather than the advertising campaign to promote ecotourism that helps to the foreign visitors’ number augment. Or perhaps Bellegea’s main airport at the same time conducted some measures such as to add in more international airlines or to enhance the airport service. These acts stimulate the increase of foreign passengers. Similarly, the per capita income may also increase because of other reasons. Daily empirical evidence shows us that the per capita income’s increase is probably due to various facts. Of which the most possible ones are the investment of foreign companies, the grow up of native industry and so on. Lacking of evidence that the increase of foreign passengers or capita income in Bellegea is resulted from ecotourism, the author cannot convince me that Belleagea’s advertising campaign is successful and worth of imitation.

Moreover, granted that Bellegea’s advertising campaign leads to, or at least one of the reasons for the increase of foreign visitors and per capita income, the author cannot simply propose the simulation in Paraterra without any analysis. The success of ecotourism in Belleagea is not able to guarantee the same positive effect in Paraterra. It is entirely possible that in Paraterra the nature source is scant, while it is famous for the ancient vestiges or other artificial places of interest. If this is the case, it is barely appropriate for the government to conduct ecotourism, let alone the advertising campaign. The author is supposed to investigate the situation of tourism in Paraterra and assure it is applicable for Paraterra to follow Ballegea on ecotourism.   

Also, even if it is apropos for Paraterra to adopt ecotourism according to the case of Ballegea, the author’s assumption that the adoption of advertising campaign for ecotourism would provide more income for the population of Paraterra and also preserve the natural environment of it is still lacking of evidence and thus gratuitous. First of all, perhaps Paraterra’s nature environment is well-developed already, and the room left for enhancement is inadequate. In that matter, even if Paraterra conducts advertising campaign for ecotourism, the income for population is hardly be promoted. Secondly, in the above argument, the author doesn’t mention the ecotourism’s impact for the natural environment. It is totally possible that although the tourism being promoted is ecologically sound, the large inburst of visitors may still negatively affects the natural environment in that tiny country. If this is true, it is simply illegitimate for the author to infer that ecotourism would bring Paraterra a better natural environment.      

Lastly, the proposal for hiring the current director of Bellegea's National Tourism Office as a consultant for the campaign in Paraterra is lacking of consideration and naïve. Firstly, as the current director of Bellegea’s National Tourism Office, the possibility of his or her joining as a consultant in Paraterra should be seriously questioned. Common sense tells us that the current director is always busy and difficult to be hired. Secondly, assuming that the current director in Bellegea is willing to be a consultant in Paraterra, the author still ungrounded implicate that he or she will certainly contribute to the advertising campaign in Paraterra. Maybe the director doesn’t familiar with the specific advantage of natural resource in Paraterra. Or perhaps the culture and trait of ecotourism’s sell-points are extremely different between those two countries which renders it not appropriate for the director of Bellegea’s to give useful suggestions. Either of the possibilities, if true, would undermine the advice for hiring the director of Belleagea’s National Tourism Office as a consultant for the campaign in Paraterra.

In conclusion, the author not only logically unsounded but also relies on several doubtful premises and assumptions. To fully convince me, the author should provide more details and more concrete information about the advertising campaign in Bellegea. Also, he or she is supposed to furnish some necessary investigations or the comparison between these two countries as well as some sounded consideration about the consultant for the campaign in Paraterra.

[ 本帖最后由 solartorch 于 2007-6-30 02:21 编辑 ]

jennetrjUID: 2275453

While it seems true that the facts in the above argument contribute to the conclusion that Paraterra should begin to promote ecotourism and hire the current director of Belleagea's National Tourism Office as a consultant for the advertising campaign, the evidence and reasoning provided by the author are indefensible under serious scrutiny---mainly in four respects.

To begin with, the information of the increase about foreign arrivals and capita income in Bellegea cannot sufficiently demonstrate that the ecotourism in Belleagea strengthened its lagging economy. The author fails to account for the reasons other than the advertising campaign about ecotourism which are also or more likely to contribute to these phenomenal. Lacking evidence to the contrary, it is possible that the number of foreign visitors arriving at Bellegea’s main airport this year doubled due to other factors. For example, maybe Bellegea suffered from domestic turbulence last year and has just been stabilized from that commotion this year. It is this reason rather than the advertising campaign to promote ecotourism that helps to the foreign visitors’ number augment. Or perhaps Bellegea’s main airport at the same time conducted some measures such as to add in more international airlines or to enhance the airport service. These acts stimulate the increase of foreign passengers. Similarly, the per capita income may also increase because of other reasons. Daily empirical evidence shows us that the per capita income’s increase is probably due to various facts. Of which the most possible ones are the investment of foreign companies, the grow up of native industry and so on. Lacking of evidence that the increase of foreign passengers or capita income in Bellegea is resulted from ecotourism, the author cannot convince me that Belleagea’s advertising campaign is successful and worth of imitation.[两个逻辑错误并在一段内，略显混乱，建议分开写，条理能更清楚]

Moreover, granted that Bellegea’s advertising campaign leads to, or at least one of the reasons for the increase of foreign visitors and per capita income, the author cannot simply propose the simulation in Paraterra without any analysis. The success of ecotourism in Belleagea is not able to guarantee the same positive effect in Paraterra. It is entirely possible that in Paraterra the nature source is scant, while it is famous for the ancient vestiges or other artificial places of interest. If this is the case, it is barely appropriate for the government to conduct ecotourism, let alone the advertising campaign. The author is supposed to investigate the situation of tourism in Paraterra and assure it is applicable for Paraterra to follow Ballegea on ecotourism.   

Also, even if it is apropos for Paraterra to adopt ecotourism according to the case of Ballegea, the author’s assumption that the adoption of advertising campaign for ecotourism would provide more income for the population of Paraterra and also preserve the natural environment of it is still lacking of evidence and thus gratuitous. First of all, perhaps Paraterra’s nature environment is well-developed already, and the room left for enhancement is inadequate. In that matter, even if Paraterra conducts advertising campaign for ecotourism, the income for population is hardly be promoted. Secondly, in the above argument, the author doesn’t mention the ecotourism’s impact for the natural environment. It is totally possible that although the tourism being promoted is ecologically sound, the large inburst of visitors may still negatively affects the natural environment in that tiny country. If this is true, it is simply illegitimate for the author to infer that ecotourism would bring Paraterra a better natural environment.      

Lastly, the proposal for hiring the current director of Bellegea's National Tourism Office as a consultant for the campaign in Paraterra is lacking of consideration and naïve. Firstly, as the current director of Bellegea’s National Tourism Office, the possibility of his or her joining as a consultant in Paraterra should be seriously questioned. Common sense tells us that the current director is always busy and difficult to be hired. Secondly, assuming that the current director in Bellegea is willing to be a consultant in Paraterra, the author still ungrounded implicate that he or she will certainly contribute to the advertising campaign in Paraterra. Maybe the director doesn’t familiar with the specific advantage of natural resource in Paraterra. Or perhaps the culture and trait of ecotourism’s sell-points are extremely different between those two countries which renders it not appropriate for the director of Bellegea’s to give useful suggestions. Either of the possibilities, if true, would undermine the advice for hiring the director of Belleagea’s National Tourism Office as a consultant for the campaign in Paraterra.

In conclusion, the author not only logically unsounded but also relies on several doubtful premises and assumptions. To fully convince me, the author should provide more details and more concrete information about the advertising campaign in Bellegea. Also, he or she is supposed to furnish some necessary investigations or the comparison between these two countries as well as some sounded consideration about the consultant for the campaign in Paraterra.

通篇几乎所有的逻辑错误都论述了，个人意见挑选逻辑链最相关的几个
另外，LZ的篇幅几乎是判分标准的两倍，厉害！不知有没有限时？

coraoneUID: 2233021

发现LZ和我遇到同样问题了-.-b。。。
我也是在努力减少字数中。。。要不然限时有点麻烦