argument42，我的第一篇argu，欢迎拍砖

PaladinHLUID: 2182926

偶是菜鸟，第一篇argu，未限时，请拍砖，谢谢！:p

提纲：
1、Bellegea 的广告未必有效，未必导致 ecotourism 的游客增加
2、人均收入增加未必因为 ecotourism 的开展
3、ecotourism 未必能保护环境
4、雇用 Bellegea 的官员未必合适

TOPIC: 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."

In this argument the arguer proposes that the country of Paraterra should begin to promote ecotourism in order to provide more income for the population of Paraterra and preserve Paraterra's natural environment. The arguer also suggests that Paraterra should hire the current director of Bellegea's National Tourism Office as a consultant for a success in advertising campaign. To support these conclusions, the arguer points out that the nearby country of Bellegea began an advertising campaign to promote ecotourism last year, and that this year the number of foreign visitors arriving Bellegea's main airport doubled, and per capita income increased by ten percent. Careful scrutiny of this evidence and the arguer's line of reasoning, however, reveals that they accomplish little toward supporting to the arguer's proposal, as discussed below.

As a threshold matter, the argument rest on the gratuitous assumption that the advertising campaign to promote ecotourism is successful in Bellegea. Firstly, it is possible that more foreign visitors arrived at Bellegea's main airport this year not for the ecotourism but for other business. For example, there may be an international sports game held in Bellegea this year. Secondly, since the argument only tells me that the foreign visitors to Bellegea's main airport doubled, there might be a decline of visitors in other airport of Bellegea, which may result in a decrease in the total number of foreign visitors to Bellegea. In short, the arguer fails to convince me that the advertising campaign to promote ecotourism is actually successful unless he/she provides more evidence which can show that the total number of visitors to Bellegea for ecotourism increased this year.

In the second place, even if the advertising campaign to promote ecotourism is successful in Bellegea this year, the argument unfairly assumes a direct cause and effect relationship between the promotion of ecotourism and the ten-percent increase of per capita income. For instance, it is entirely possible that per capita in Bellegea income increased this year due to the development of agricultural, industry and/or technology rather than ecotourism. Without ruling out other probable explanations, the arguer cannot justify the conclusion that promoting ecotourism has provided more income for the population of Bellegea.

Furthermore, another problem with the argument is the fallacious presupposition that promoting ecotourism could preserve the natural environment of the tiny country of Paraterra. Through the ecotourism -- ecologically sound tourism -- seems environment-friendly, yet common sense tell us that to encourage any kind of tourism must result in more tourists and higher consumption of electricity, gasoline and other forms of power, which will inevitably affect, rather than protect, the natural environment. Therefore, the assumption that ecotourism could preserve natural environment is dubious unless the arguer can provide such demonstration.

Last but not least, even assuming promoting ecotourism in Bellegea ultimately succeed in increasing per capita income and preserving natural environment, the arguer's recommendation to hire the current director of Bellegea's National Tourism Office as a consultant is groundless. Granted that the success of ecotourism in Bellegea is attributable to this director's leadership, he/she may nevertheless be an unqualified consultant for Paraterra, depending on how much the difference of the ecological environment, economic policy, consumption habits and other related aspects between the two countries.

In conclusion, the recommendation of the arguer is not well supported. If the argument includes the given factors discussed above, it would have been more thorough and adequate.

mumujiUID: 2199417

很好，学习中。

neopengUID: 2199606

语言不错， 感觉第三个错的反例不是很恰当