argument152 寄托4人组 8.27 作业

tangjihedeUID：2107695

Argument152   限时版。
------摘要------
作者：寄托4人组     共用时间：30分1秒     482 words
从2005年7月27日9时8分到2005年7月27日9时27分
------题目------
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.'
------正文------
In the argument, the author tries to convince us that Tria Island should carry out a charging policy and replenishing sand project to protect the island. I will argue, however, a careful examination will reveal several critical flaws that undermine its reasoning.

To begin with, the author fails to prove the effectiveness of charging tourists. First, the author assumes that by this method, the number of people using the beaches will be reduced; yet no evidence is given in the argument that this must be the case. Maybe Tria Island is such a famous resort that people from all over the world come to visit it; they have already spent a large sum of money on air tickets and hotels, and probably will not be bored too much about the charge. Therefore, it is highly possible that no less people will use the beaches after the charging policy carried out. Second, the author gives no data to show that the money raised from this charge will be enough for replenishing the sand. We know nothing about how much it will be cost to finish this project, and how much money it could be raised from charging. It is entirely possible that the money raised by charging is far from enough to realize the project. Thus, the validity of the charging is very doubtable.

Besides, whether the project of replenishing the sand will be practical is still open to doubt. On the one hand, no information about the effect of this project on Batia Island is provided. Maybe this project has proven to be a failure to protect buildings on Batia, and thus people should be very careful about the significance of this project. On the other hand, even granted replenishing the sand does work well on Batia, it does not necessarily follow that it will be suitable for Tria. There might be huge differences between two islands. For example, maybe the erosion of beach sand on Batia is not as serious as on Tria; maybe the buildings on Batia are much shorter than Tria's; maybe the storms on Batia is also much weaker than Tria's: all these chances undermine the effectiveness of the same project on Tria. Without comparing the difference between Tria and Batia, the author commits a fallacy of false analogy and is too hasty to give the suggestion.

Moreover, even if the charging policy and the replenishing project will be successful as the author believes, it is still not necessarily the case that the areas along the shore will be more attractive as a result. Perhaps the charging policy gives Tria Island a very bad fame among tourists, and few of them will come back again or even advise their friends not to come. Perhaps after the replenishing project, the most beautiful scenery of the island will be destroyed and thus it loses its charm once for all.  

In

哥哥家有二师兄UID：2124390

Argument152   限时版。
------摘要------
作者：寄托4人组     共用时间：30分1秒     482 words
从2005年7月27日9时8分到2005年7月27日9时27分
------题目------
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.'
------正文------
In the argument, the author tries to convince us that Tria Island should carry out a charging policy and replenishing/delete sand project to protect the island. I will argue, however, a careful examination will reveal several critical flaws that undermine its reasoning.呵呵，这个模板更简洁有力了

To begin with, the author fails to prove the effectiveness of charging tourists. First, the author assumes that by this method, the number of people using the beaches will be reduced; yet no evidence is given in the argument that this must be the case. Maybe Tria Island is such a famous resort that people from all over the world come to visit it; they have already spent a large sum of money on air tickets and hotels, and probably will not be bored/ be bothered too much about the charge. Therefore, it is highly possible that no less people will use the beaches after the charging policy beingcarried out. Second, the author gives no data to show that the money raised from this charge will be enough for replenishing the sand. We know nothing about how much it will be/delete cost to finish this project, and how much money it could be raised from charging. It is entirely possible that the money raised by charging is far from enough to realize the project. Thus, the validity of the charging is very doubtable.

Besides, whether the project of replenishing the sand will be practical is still open to doubt. On the one hand, no information about the effect of this project on Batia Island is provided. Maybe this project has proven to be a failure to protect buildings on Batia, and thus people should be very careful about the significance of this project/ the present project. On the other hand, even granted replenishing the sand does work well on Batia, it does not necessarily follow that it will be suitable for Tria. There might be huge differences between two islands. For example, maybe the erosion of beach sand on Batia is not as serious as on Tria; maybe the buildings on Batia are much shorter than Tria's; maybe the storms on Batia is/ are also much weaker than Tria's:/. All these chances undermine the effectiveness of the same project on Tria. Without comparing the difference between Tria and Batia, the author commits a fallacy of false analogy and is too hasty to give the suggestion.

Moreover, even if the charging policy and the replenishing project will be successful as the author believes, it is still not necessarily the case that the areas along the shore will be more attractive as a result. Perhaps the charging policy gives Tria Island a very bad fame among tourists, and few of them will come back again or even advise their friends not to come. Perhaps after the replenishing project, the most beautiful scenery of the island will be destroyed and thus it loses its charm once for all.  
总评：很好！分析的很透彻，语言也很流畅，写成这样没有结果也没啥大影响了.唉，让我想起我那该死的165，难过啊

tangjihedeUID：2107695

roger！