argument42 kito组

gaojiehahaUID：2149729

Argument42:
The 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.'
＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝
提纲：
1、B和P不能这样类推
2、B的经济增长可能和广告推广没关系
3、B的director不一定适合P
＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝
正文：（453）
In this argument, the arguer claims that Paraterra should promote income and preserve the natural environment by the means that to hire a director now is working for Bellega to hold an advertising campaign. To substantial the recommendation, the arguer cites the successful experience of Bellega. This argument is unwarranted for several critical flaws.

First, the argument relies on what might be a false analogy between Bellegea and Paraterra. In order for Bellegea to serve as a model that Paraterra should emulate, the arguer must assume that all relevant circumstances involving the economy are essentially the same. However, the assumption is unwarranted. For example, the arguer overlooks the characteristics of two countries. Perhaps Bellegea is a big place has convenient transportation suitable for ecotourism, whereas Paraterra is too small and the traffic is underdeveloped for ecotourism. Also, the example as to Paraterra is happened last year, perhaps the situation this year is different. Without evidence to support these inferences, it is just as likely that the analogy is unreasonable.

The argument concludes based on a known correlation between hold an advertising campaign and per capita income increase in Bellegea that the former is attributable, at least partly, to the latter. Yet the correlation alone amounts to scant evidence of the claimed cause-and-effect relationship. Perhaps Bellegea's economical increase can be caused by other factors as well, such as economical expansion happened this year. If this is the case, then the conclusion that an advertising campaign is effective in Bellegea's economical increase is sceptical. Also, the fact that the number of foreign visitors arriving at Bellegea's main airport doubled cannot infer that total visitors in Bellegea increased. The conclusion is on the assumption that there is only one traffical channel for visitors. Only in that case, we can be told that population in Bellegea increased.

Additionally, the arguer assumes that to employ the current director of Bellegea's National Tourism Office as a consultant for Paraterra's advertising campaign for the reason that the director planned a successful advertising for Bellegea, Paraterra will achieve success. Yet the arguer fails to offer any evidence to substantiate this crucial assumption. Absent such evidence, it is just as likely that the director's style of advertising campaign is not accepted by the potential tourists of Paraterra, or not appropriate the tradition, lifestyle, and so forth, of Paraterra; for that matter, perhaps in Paraterra, the plan by the director will not reach an anticipate result.

As it stands, the argument is not well reasoned. To make it more convincing, the arguer would have to demonstrate more information to approve that circumstances in both Bellegea and Paraterra are likely the same. Also, we need more information regarding the director's type, and so on.

@amy@UID：209096

In this argument, the arguer claims that Paraterra should promote income and preserve the natural environment by the means that to hire [这里是不是用be means of hiring就可以了？] a director now is working for Bellega [Bellegea] to hold an advertising campaign. To substantial [要用动词substantiate吧] the recommendation, the arguer cites the successful experience of Bellega. This argument is unwarranted for several critical flaws.

First, the argument relies on what might be a false analogy between Bellegea and Paraterra. In order for Bellegea to serve as a model that Paraterra should emulate [这句话我总觉得有点别扭，你看改成这样好不好：In order to make Bellegea serve as model that Paraterra should emulate], the arguer must assume that all relevant circumstances involving the economy [加上of the two countries] are essentially the same. However, the assumption is unwarranted. For example, the arguer overlooks the characteristics of two countries. Perhaps Bellegea is a big place has convenient transportation suitable for ecotourism, whereas Paraterra is too small and the traffic is underdeveloped for ecotourism. Also, the example as to Paraterra [这里应该是Bellegea吧] is happened last year, perhaps the situation this year is different. [你这段的主题句是第一句吧？那就是说这两个国家是有区别的，可这句是说去年和今年是不同的，这段应该可以再好好组织一下。] Without evidence to support these inferences, it is just as likely that the analogy is unreasonable.

The argument concludes [The arguer’s conclusion] based on a known correlation between hold [holding] an advertising campaign and per capita income increase in Bellegea that the former is attributable, at least partly, to the latter. Yet the correlation alone amounts to scant evidence of the claimed cause-and-effect relationship. Perhaps Bellegea's economical increase can [恩…. 前面用了perhaps，这里是不是就用can了，直接就用was，把后面的be去掉] be caused by other factors as well, such as economical expansion happened this year. If this is the case, then the conclusion that an advertising campaign is effective in Bellegea's economical increase is sceptical. Also, the fact that the number of foreign visitors arriving at Bellegea's main airport doubled cannot infer that total visitors in Bellegea increased. The conclusion is on the assumption that there is only one traffical [traffic] channel for visitors. Only in that case, we can be told that population in Bellegea increased.[Bellegea的人口增加？应该是旅游的人增加吧？感觉这段表达的不是很好，比较乱，你再好好看看吧]

Additionally, the arguer assumes that to employ the current director of Bellegea's National Tourism Office as a consultant for Paraterra's advertising campaign for the reason that the director planned a successful advertising for Bellegea, Paraterra will achieve success. Yet the arguer fails to offer any evidence to substantiate this crucial assumption. Absent such evidence, it is just as [just as是“正象”的意思，还有别的意思吗？用在这里合适吗？] likely that the director's style of advertising campaign is not accepted by the potential tourists of Paraterra, or not appropriate the tradition, lifestyle, and so forth, of Paraterra; for that matter, perhaps in Paraterra, the plan by the director will not reach an anticipate result.

As it stands, the argument is not well reasoned. To make it more convincing, the arguer would have to demonstrate more information to approve [是prove吧？] that circumstances in both Bellegea and Paraterra are likely the same. Also, we need more information regarding the director's type [type? 不太明白啊], and so on.