Argument42 [infinity小组]第二十五次作业

mayaUID: 199038

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."
WORDS: 526         TIME: 30min          DATE: 2006-7-21

The conclusion endorsed in this argument is that Paraterra should begin an advertising campaign to promote ecotourism as the nearby country Bellegea did and better preserve their natural environment. The sorts of reasons cited are that Bellegea's same advertising campaign is efficient and more visitors have come to their country. However, this proposal is little emotional appeal to this conclusion.

In the first place, the author has provided no information about whether this program should be begun in Paraterra. After all, when this project began, the environmental problems would be inevitably emerged due to the vast of visitors’ coming. It is possible that there is no need to promote an ecotourism due to their country's strong economy. Or perhaps residents are accustomed to their original life and do not want to endure outsiders' interferences. However, the author has not considered these possibilities.

In the second place, even if Paraterra is eager to need this project, the author cannot hastily assume that there would be an opportunity that can enhance the income due to an advertising campaign to promote ecotourism. The facts about the condition of Paraterra should be needed in order to consider the validity to begin this campaign. If all the prerequisites for this program cannot support, the author could not guarantee that a soaring income would take place in this country.

In the third place, even if Paraterra has the strong ability to promote ecotourism, they would not need to imitate as the nearby country of Bellegea did. It is possible that Bellegea's environment or climate could attract visitors to go there. Yet, the author has not considered whether they owned the same or even better advantages to attract visitors. If this is not the case, then the author cannot simply adopt the Bellegea's method. In addition, we could not easily accept the author's assumption that their program is successful. The mere fact that more visitors have come to Bellegea cannot show their appeals to ecotourism. It is possible that their real purpose is to visit some other places rather than the ecotourism. It is equally possible that these visitors just temporarily stopped in the airport and later they would go other countries. Unfortunately, the author has not provided more information about these visitors.   

Finally, even if the country of Paraterra can accept the program of beginning an advertising campaign to promote an ecotourism, by hiring Bellegea's National Tourism Office as a consultant may be not a good idea. After all, this organization belongs to the country of Bellegea and it is possible that they have known nothing about the country of Paraterra. Moreover, the success of Bellegea is not their individual contribution, only hiring one organization is not likely to guarantee the success in Paraterra.

To sum up, the author's emotional appeal to promote an ecotourism to encourage their income is not support by the evidence cited in the argument. The author should more clearly consider the residents' opinion about this program. In addition, whether the program is suitable to implement in Paraterra should be made a survey to evaluate. Also, they would better hire a domestic consult to help this advertising campaign.

这篇Argu一定帮我好好看看,要再有重大的逻辑问题我就死定了,哈哈

sealfunsUID: 2179092

既然是你叫我来挑毛病的我就不客气了呵呵～～总的来说我感到疑惑的地方比较明显＝＝
看你BODY的意思大概是
    P国是否需要生态旅游>P国是否适合生态旅游>P国和B国不一样，不能照搬>补充不该顾那个人

    逻辑上这个貌似也可以，但是你阐述的方式让人看的不太爽。比如第一点完全可以分为两点：一是生态旅游是否可以促进本地经济，二是生态旅游是否不会破坏环境。两点都不满足当然P国不需要这个了是吧。

    但是总的来说，我觉得有一点危险的地方就是通篇你是按照自己的思路一步步来说明这个部长的建议不一定好，并没有紧贴argu原文的内在联系来批驳。虽然你这个不一定就不好，但是范文和280篇里少有这样的例子。因此我持保留态度。

   因此这篇文章的主要问题倒不一定是你逻辑错了，而是这种写法是否可取。另外具体论证展开上还有一些地方可以改善，但是相比这个就不太重要了。这篇我是这样写的：

In order to promote the economy without destroying the environment, the economic minister of Paraterra proposes developing ecotourism because after Bellegea began an advertising campaign of ecotourism, its economy was promoted significantly. Yet a series of false assumptions and false interpretation of the evidence undermine the reliability of the argument.

The minister's assertion is based on a fundamental assumption that ecotourism in Bellegea did promote its economy without destroying the environment. Yet this assumption is totally groundless. First, the evidence which the minister presents here can lend little support to the assumption. Although the number of visitors arriving at Bellegea's main airport doubled, the whole tourism in the country might not be increased. Visitors at the main airport might not come for tourism but for business activities or other purposes. Even if most of them were tourists, this evidence only proved that tourists at the main airport rose. Whether the rest airports all experienced an increase has not been mentioned. Therefore the whole number of tourists might not rise.

Second, the fact that per capita income in Bellegea increased by ten percent may not be attributed to ecotourism, though it indeed shows that the economy is promoted. The economy of a nation is influenced by many factors, so is the increase. It is likely the case that the export of Bellegea increased so that people got more income. Without precluding these possible explanations the minister cannot draw the conclusion that ecotourism made contributions to the economy. In addition, whether ecotourism preserved the environment has not been mentioned in the argument. Hence the minister should consider the assumption again and find more support.

Even if we concede that ecotourism in Bellegea did promote its economy without destroying the environment, whether it would take the same effects in Paraterra is very doubtful. The minister may commit a fallacy of false analogy between the two countries. As for Bellegea, this country may have a plenty of natural sights to develop ecotourism. But Paraterra is possibly poor in natural resources and unable to provide beautiful sight seeing for tourists. If this is the case, Paraterra will achieve nothing but failure in developing ecotourism. Meanwhile, as natural environment in the two countries can be quite different from each other, the environmentally friendly ecotourism in Bellegea is possible to be harmful in Paraterra. Thus whether ecotourism will have positive effects in Paraterra is open to doubt.

Moreover, hiring the current director of Bellegea's National Tourism Office as a consultant for the advertising campaign in Paraterra may be unnecessary. No evidence shows that this director played an important role in the advertising campaign in Bellegea. It is possible that the advertising company with which Bellegea cooperated was the main factor of the successful campaign so hiring this company may be wiser.

Without considering many other possible explanations, the minister proposes a groundless advice to promote the economy. Although the intention of the minister is probably good, and I do believe that the minister tries his or her best to fulfill the mission, the minister still should have conduct more investigations about the natural environment of the two countries as well as other economic factors before making any decision. Otherwise Paraterra will take the risk of destroying the valuable environment without achieving any significant economic progress.

我写的也不好，仅供参考思路而已。B1和B2其实都是讲B1的TS，不过是第一点和第二点。B3和B4的论点应该比较明显吧。我基本上还是按照我一贯的思路让步加偶尔的补充。

mayaUID: 199038

" 1、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).2、 This year the number of foreign visitors arriving at Bellegea's main airport doubled, and per capita income in Bellegea increased by ten percent.3、 To provide more income for the population of Paraterra and also preserve the natural environment of our tiny country,5、 we too should begin to promote ecotourism. 4、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."

sealfuns：
我越来越糊涂了～～，我理解的就是5是结论，而它的前提是3，1、2、4都是为了证明3的。而我的思路也就是先否定大前提4能够推出结论，不过这里是像你说的应该分开来讨论。然后我再攻击论据1、2、4。可能我的思路是有点走自己路线了，如果我写成B1、2都是批驳这个前提的dubious，然后从B3来个even if这个前提成立，但是1、2、4并不能说明前提成立，而不是像我文章中的从头到尾都是一串珠子的批驳、即使成立、再批。你看这样对吗？
老烦你了，主要认为这个问题比较严重想尽快搞明白，明天就不会骚扰你了，呵呵

xmbjowlUID: 2182375

seated~

mayaUID: 199038

God， help me!

xmbjowlUID: 2182375

语法上我就不细究了，我觉得你的逻辑顺序说实话有点冒险，其实原文中也有内在的逻辑顺序，with which you could advance your ideas in accord, body1 和body2的顺序跌倒一下可否？body2应该改进一下～