Argument152 我的第5篇 请各位尽情拍砖

wangkuoUID: 2596657

TOPIC: ARGUMENT152 - 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."
WORDS: 429
TIME: 00:30:00
DATE: 2009-8-7 16:10:29

In the argument, the arguer concluded that in order to stop the erosion, we should charge people for using the beaches. To strengthen this argument, the arguer provides some supporting evidence such as the successful experience from the island Batia. The arguer also claims that since the area along the shore will be more attractive as a result, the beaches will be preserves and the area' tourism will improve. At the first glance, the argument is some how reasonable, but close scrutiny reveals that it contains several unconvincing assumption and is therefore unpersuasive.

First and foremost, the arguer claims that we should adapt the example of the island of Batia, automatically assumes that Tria and Batia will have same social situation. However, this might not be the case. The arguer obviously overlooks other possible explanations for this phenomenon. For example perhaps the island of Tria will have fewer costumers than the Batia, we cannot have enough money to replenishing, or perhaps the citizen of Batia will have more income without thinking the charge of the beach. Without accounting for the possibilities, we cannot accept the arguer' point.

Second, even if we trust the island of Tria have same social situation as Batia have, we still think the replenishing the sand will be helpful to the beach in the Tria .Perhaps the threat of storm in the Tria is weaker than one in the Batia, or perhaps the beach in the Tria is very good with no need of the replenish. Without ruling out these possibilities, the arguer' point is still unpersuasive.

Third,
even if we should concede that the beach of Tria will need to replenish in order to preserved, the arguer fails to consider possibilities, perhaps the customers have choose other beach, or more customers have no afford to the high price. For this matter, the way of  replenishing cannot achieve the good effects.

Finally, replenishing beach is not the very good recommendation. The arguer did not consider other possible way. Such as changing model of management of the beach, or cultivating more trees to preserve the beach.

To sum up, the arguer' conclusion that in order to stop the erosion, we should charge people for using the beaches is not well supported as it stands. To bolster it, the argument must provide more evidences such as the report showing the same situation between the Tria and Batia and the survey about the income of the Tria. To better assess, I would also need to know the statistic showing the times of the storms in the island in the Tria.