argument30超越自我小组第三次作业

zugurrrUID: 2482827

30
According to information recently reported in the Eliottown Gazette, the number of people who travel to Eliottown has increased significantly over the past several years. So far this year over 100,000 people have arrived on flights to Eliottown's airport, compared with only 80,000 last year and 40,000 the year before. Eliottown's train station has received more than 50,000 passengers this year, compared with less than 40,000 last year and 20,000 the year before. Clearly tourism in Eliottown has been increasing, thanks to the new Central Park and Museum of Modern Art that opened last year. Therefore, the funding for the park and museum should be increased significantly.

The conclusion the argument, which is funding for park and museum should be increase, is based on that thanks to new Central Park and Museum of Modern Art, tourism in Eliottown increases. To support that the arguer refer to the recently reported information about the more travelers to Eliottown this year, and the more people arrived at the Eliottown's by airplane and train. However, the argument is unwarranted and misleading.

First, if the Central Park and Museum of Modern Art has improve the Eliottown' tourism, the arguer should provide detail information about the exact number of the visitors to these two places and to what percentage their visitors take into the whole tourism visitors. However the arguer just simply concluded the reason of the Eliottown tourism increase is the two places just because they opened last year. Actually, unless the argue excludes other possible reasons, such as the improving of the environment of Eliottown, management reform in the tourism, last years large investment on the advertisement of the Eliottown, the conclusion of these improving the tourism is premature.

Second, even though the assumption of the function of these two places is correct, If the park and museum of Eliottown is enough or even out of demands of the tourist needs, or there is on potential valuable place for the building of the park or museum, how the funding for the park and museum bring the profits for the Elittown? Before the arguer investigate about the Eliottown tourism markets and the tourists response for the park and museum, all the suggestion about increase the parks or museums is misleading for the Eliottown tourism industry.

Third, given the people who travel to Eliottown not all are the tourists, even though their number increase this year, how do we know the tourism in Elittown increase? Compared with before, more people traveled to Eliottown , among which larger number of traveled by plane, so did by train. But arguer failed to prove tourist number increase too. Maybe, the travelers are mostly for other business or just change their planes or trains. Therefore, before the necessary information of the tourists which the arguer failed to provide, the conclusion is premature.

In sum, before the evidence of the tourist increases is provided by the arguer the improving of Eliottown tourism is unwarranted. Bedsides, he also needs to prove that the development of tourism is result from the new Central Park and Museum of Modern Art, as well as the convincing that the further funding for the parks and museums could gain the profits for Elittown. Before providing information about above problems, the last suggestion is unwarranted and misleading.

hermituforestUID: 2354296

According to information recently reported in the Eliottown Gazette, the number of people who travel to Eliottown has increased significantly over the past several years. So far this year over 100,000 people have arrived on flights to Eliottown's airport, compared with only 80,000 last year and 40,000 the year before.（2谓语） Eliottown's train station has received more than 50,000 passengers this year, compared with less than 40,000 last year and 20,000 the year before. Clearly tourism in Eliottown has been increasing, thanks to the new Central Park and Museum of Modern Art that opened last year.（有点chinglish。。调整下） Therefore, the funding for the park and museum should be increased significantly.

The conclusion the argument, which is funding for park and museum should be increase, is based on that thanks to（去掉） new Central Park and Museum of Modern Art, tourism in Eliottown increases.（这句话不是很清晰，不要刻意追求长句啊） To support that the arguer refer to the recently reported information about the more travelers to Eliottown this year, and the more people arrived at the Eliottown's by airplane and train. However, the argument is unwarranted and misleading.

关于开头，参考一下https://bbs.gter.net/viewthread.php?tid=134092 不要写得过于冗长


First, if the Central Park and Museum of Modern Art has improve the Eliottown' tourism, the arguer should provide detail information about the exact number of the visitors to these two places and to what percentage their visitors take into the whole tourism visitors. However the arguer just simply concluded the reason of the Eliottown tourism increase is the two places just because they opened last year. Actually, unless the argue excludes other possible reasons, such as the improving of the environment of Eliottown, management reform in the tourism, last years large investment on the advertisement of the Eliottown, the conclusion of these improving the tourism is premature.

Second,（多余） even though the assumption of the function of these two places is correct, If the park and museum of Eliottown is enough or even out of demands of the tourist needs, or there is on potential valuable place for the building of the park or museum, how the funding for the park and museum bring the profits for the Elittown? Before the arguer investigate（及物动词） about the Eliottown tourism markets and the tourists response for the park and museum, all the suggestion about increase the parks or museums is misleading for the Eliottown tourism industry.

Third, given the people who travel to Eliottown not all are the tourists, even though their number increase this year, how do we know the tourism in Elittown increase? Compared with before（这里有问题，compare with怎么可能加介词？）, more people traveled to Eliottown , among which larger number of traveled by plane, so did by train. But arguer failed to prove tourist number increase too. Maybe, the travelers are mostly for other business or just change their planes or trains. Therefore, before the necessary information of the tourists which the arguer failed to provide, the conclusion is premature.（这个词用得不准确，是指没发展成熟的过早，换成hasty）

In sum, before the evidence of the tourist increases is provided by the arguer the improving of Eliottown tourism is unwarranted. Bedsides, he also needs to prove that the development of tourism is result from the new Central Park and Museum of Modern Art, as well as the convincing that the further funding for the parks and museums could gain the profits for Elittown. Before providing information about above problems, the last suggestion is unwarranted and misleading.

一点意见：
1、不赞成只是找几个错误点就搞定A，参考这个帖子 https://bbs.gter.net/viewthread.php?tid=412534&extra=page%3D1%26filter%3Dtype%26typeid%3D100