argument42

hlzhang431UID: 2297648

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."

Merely based on a false analogy between Paraterra (P) and Belegea (B) , the arguer recommends that for the purpose of providing more income for the population of P and also preserve the natural environment, they should begin to promote ecotourism and besides to ensure the success of their advertising campaign, they should hire the current director of B's National Tourism Office as a consultant for the campaign. Close scrutiny of his or her inference reveals that it suffers from many logical fallacies and thus is unconvincing.

Firstly and most importantly, the analogy that the arguer makes between P and B seems dubious for the simple reason that he or she does not provide enough similarities between them to justify this analogical deduction. Due to possible difference between the two, ecotourism suitable for B might not fit for P. Perhaps B is a country of long history, where there are lots of archeological sites. And thus ecotourism might serve as an impetus to encouraging people to go there. However, P is a country of a short term, where there were few such sites, and then it is entirely possible that people might not want to P. Simply put, without providing enough similarities between the two countries, the arguer cannot hastily make such an analogy.

Secondly, the arguer fails to notice that the increase of foreign visitors arriving at B's main airport and per capita income in B might not be attributed to the implementation of ecotourism there.  Perhaps B country has made enough policies encouraging outsiders to do business there. Then it is entirely possible that people go there for business rather than for sight-seeing. And the increase of per capita income in B country might be due to frequency business there instead of ecotourism. All in all, without giving enough specific information, the arguer cannot simply attribute these increases to ecotourism.

Finally, even if the arguer could simply justify the above-mentioned possibilities, it is still unreasonable to assert that by hiring the current director of B's National Tourism Office as a consultant for the campaign would ensure the success of their advertising campaign. Perhaps the success of advertising campaign in B were attributable to the former director, who has retired two months ago and the current  director is a novice in this field, then it might be absurd to assume that the recruitment of such a director would ensure the success of advertising campaign in P. Besides, even if the current director were indeed responsible for B's successful campaign, due to possible differences between the two counties, he or she might not successfully enact his or her policies in P.

In a word, the arguer's inference lacks of credibility as it stands in that he or she has overlooked or chosen to ignore many aspects of his or her conclusion. To further substantiate it, more information should be provided to especially regarding the similarities of P and B. What is more, the arguer should be reasonably justify that the increase of the pea capita income was indeed result from ecotourism and the current director would successfully organize the advertising campaign in P as well.

(2003-7-3 14:29:34)