argument 152:求拍～急！8月JJ题

London818UID: 2518970

黄皮书152
“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 doe to protect buildings on the nearby island of Batia, will help protect buildings along our shores, thereby reducing these building’s 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.”

急球拍！这是我的第一篇argument,r然而九天后就要考了，十分着急。我的策略是每天写几篇8月最新机经题。
希望大家帮助一下，谢谢～我会回拍的。

In this argument, the author suggests that the tourist bureau of Tria Island should charge people for using the beaches in order to stop the erosion, which is a serious threat to the island and its tourist industry. To justify this claim, the author points out that by doing so,it will reduce the number of people using the beaches as well as raise money for replenishing the sand. In addition, the author reasons that replenishing the sand , as Batia Island did, will help protect buildings from severe storms, therefore will improve the area’s tourist industry. However, the author relies on a series of unsubstantiated assumptions and is therefore unconvincing as it stands.

First of all, the author assumes that the number of people going to the beaches will decrease if an access charge is added. However, the author provides no evidence to substantiate this assumption. As for the residents on the island, beach activities are part of their everyday life, therefore it’s entirely possible that they will continue using the beaches even if there is a charge. As for the tourists, they may complain about the charging, yet it might not stop them from going to the beaches as long as they’re fascinating.

In the second place, even if the author’s solution would discourage people using the beaches, the author overlooks the possibility that the whole economy of the island would deteriorate. In the extent that the revenue of the island mostly depends on tourist industry the author’s propose would be harmful rather than beneficial.

In the third place, in the author’s point of view, there is a correlation between number of people using the beach and erosion of beach. How ever, the author fails to rule out other possible causes for the latter. For instance, there is a good chance that industrial pollution is the arch-criminal for erosion of beach, or the climate change. Without ruling out such factors it is not convincing to assume that erosion of beach is caused by people.

In the fourth place, in referring to Batia Island’s measue of replenishing the sand,
the author fails to provide any information about the island of Batia. It may , in fact, not be suffering from erosion of sand at all and doing so merely for beautifying the environment. What’s more, there is no evidence that replenishing the sand will help protect buildings along the shores.

In sum, the recommendation for adding a beach-access charge for Tria Island is not well reasoned. To convince me, the author should provide reasonable deduction that a charge for beaches does decrease number of people to the beaches and that decrease of beach activities does improve the sand condition. In order to better evaluate the argument, the author also need to provide more information about Batia Island’s situation and experience in dealing with similar occasions.

[ 本帖最后由 London818 于 2008-8-9 09:26 编辑 ]

萝卜须根多UID: 3008387

我很想知道However, the author relies on a series of unsubstantiated assumptions and is therefore unconvincing as it stands.这句能不能算万能的~