argument42 临阵20天，菜鸟二磨枪

mumujiUID: 2199417

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：
一 B国经济指标增长未必来自于生态旅游。
   1 来访者未必处于旅游目的。
   2 人均收入增长未必来自旅游业。
二 P,B国国情的不同被忽略。
三 雇用人选未必称职。
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Although the notion that Paraterra should hire the current director of Bellegea's National Tourism Office to promote its own ecotourism seems at first glance to be a right decision, the argument above is vague and inconclusive. First of all, it provides no evidence that the increasing economic statistics of Paraterra’s reference country, Bellegea, was directly related to Bellegea’s advertising campaign to promote ecotourism. Since the arguer fails to demonstrate how many foreign visitors arriving at Bellegea's main airport were tourists, we have sufficient reason to doubt that the economic benefit of ecotourism might take longer time than only one year to emerge and Bellegea’s accumulated tourists just came for other reasons, such as successful commercial fairs or excellent medical care. Further, the argument says nothing about how much of the increased per capita income in Bellegea was from ecotourism, it might be produced by other industries, for example, the financial industry and infrastructure industry.

Secondly, the argument does not take into account the inherent difference between the two countries, Paraterra and Bellegea. The arguer merely tells us they are nearby to each other. It is entirely possible that the two countries are totally different ones with distinct natural sources and economic environment. Thus, even if Bellegea succeeded in promoting its ecotourism and booming its economy, Paraterra might have no chance to strengthen its economy in the identical way. Paraterra may be a place lacking natural tourist resort, convenient traffic system and enough serving people. It would be an imprudent idea to promote ecotourism there with such insufficient conditions.

Last but not least, the arguer leaves us no hint that the current director of Bellegea's National Tourism Office was also the director or decisive figure of Bellegea’s advertising campaign to promote ecotourism. The government of Paraterra might hire a person who knew nothing about advertising and promotion. And even if he knew, he could not ensure that advertising campaign in Paraterra would be successful as the arguer concludes, for the reason I have already discussed in the second paragraph.

To sum up, the conclusion lacks credibility because the evidence cited in the analysis does not lend strong support to what the arguer maintains. The arguer needs a more complete understanding of the real benefit that Paraterra might derive from promoting ecotourism.