Argument30【超越自我小组】第3次作业

apjackUID: 2381599

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.

To come to the conclusion that the funding for the park and museum should be increased significantly as they contributed greatly to Eliottown’s tourism industry, the author substantiated by several facts that are skeptical and unwarranted.

First the increasing of the number of people traveled to Eliottown via flight and train might be distorted the success of tourism in that city. The author cities in the argument that the passenger increment of both fight and train has increased more than twice times over the past two years, for example, by flight from 40,000 to 100,000, and by train from 20,000 to 50,000. However, the author overlooks the actual number of passengers who want to have an excursion here. It is entirely possible that Eliottown is a cosmopolis, most of the passengers are businessmen who have large exhibition or have significant meeting with clients and investors. It is also possible that most of the passengers are immigrants who come here because of the prevalent of immigration trend in recent years; thereby distorting the tourism success in supporting the fact that the tourism industry in Eliotton is increasing.

Even if we consider the purpose of most of the passengers arrived to Eliottown is traveling. However, the author unfairly assumes that most of the tourists coming to Eliottown last year were merely due to the charm of the newly established central park and museum of modern art. It is not necessarily to be the case. The author fails to conceive other possibility respects why people visit Eliottown. Perhaps people visit this city because of her ancient architectures such as Catholic Church, majestic palace and other grand buildings. Or perhaps people going to Eliottown are simply because here is a very large shopping heaven in adjacent areas.  More perhaps there are several international events including Olympic Game or football world cup held in Eliottown recent years. In short, without ruling out these and other possible explanations why people come to this city, the author cannot reasonably support his assumption that most of the visiting people are attributed to the new central park and museum.

The last flaw of the argument is that the author wrongly infers that investing heavily on the two attractive spots, park and museum, would further abet the growing of tourism in Eliottown. First, the attractive of central park and museum is ambiguous and doubtful as it discussed above. If both central park and museum are not favor by visitors, is it still worth to invest significantly to them? Second, it is no guarantee that the increasing the funding to the two tourism spots would contribute to a better tourism in future. It is completely possible that internationally economic depression will happen next year; therefore tourism market is extremely desperate and many people won’t go traveling. Without ruling out the other possibilities, the author cannot stand for his conjecture.

In conclusion, the argument is not convincing as it stands. To convince us that the funding for the park and museum should be increased significantly, the author should provide concrete evidence on the actual number of travelers among those passengers of flight or train to Eliottown, and the number of travelers who visited the new central park and museum.

[ 本帖最后由 apjack 于 2008-8-14 15:37 编辑 ]

vryUID: 2288609

To come to the conclusion that the funding for the park and museum should be increased significantly as they contributed greatly to Eliottown’s tourism industry, the author substantiated by several facts that are skeptical(这个表示怀疑的，而不是可疑的) and unwarranted.
First （逗号）the increasing of the number of people traveled to Eliottown via flight and train might be distorted the success of tourism in that city. （语法错误，distorted 作用在 the increasing上， the success没有动词了）The author cities in the argument that the passenger increment of both fight and train has increased more than twice times over the past two years, for example, by flight from 40,000 to 100,000, and by train from 20,000 to 50,000. However, the author overlooks the actual number of passengers who want to have an excursion here. It is entirely possible that Eliottown is a cosmopolis, most of the passengers are businessmen who have large exhibition or have significant meeting with clients and investors. It is also possible that most of the passengers are immigrants who come here because of the prevalent of immigration trend in recent years; thereby distorting the tourism success in supporting the fact that the tourism industry in Eliotton is increasing.（进一步提出如何确定旅游人数，更好）
Even if we consider the purpose of most of the passengers arrived to Eliottown is traveling. However, the author unfairly assumes that most of the tourists coming to Eliottown last year were merely due to the charm of the newly established central park and museum of modern art. It is not necessarily to be the case. The author fails to conceive other possibility respects why people visit Eliottown. Perhaps people visit this city because of her ancient architectures such as Catholic Church, majestic palace and other grand buildings. Or perhaps people going to Eliottown are simply because here is a very large shopping heaven in adjacent areas.  More perhaps there are several international events including Olympic Game or football world cup held in Eliottown recent years. In short, without ruling out these and other possible explanations why people come to this city, the author cannot reasonably support his assumption that most of the visiting people are attributed to the new central park and museum.（举出可能性之后在总结一下就好了~~）
The last flaw of the argument is that the author wrongly infers that investing heavily on the two attractive spots, park and museum, would further abet the growing of tourism in Eliottown. First, the attractive of central park and museum is ambiguous and doubtful as it discussed above. If both central park and museum are not favor by visitors, is it still worth to invest significantly to them? Second, it is no guarantee that the increasing the funding to the two tourism spots would contribute to a better tourism in future. It is completely possible that internationally economic depression will happen next year; therefore tourism market is extremely desperate and many people won’t go traveling. （举出最坏情况最有可能合题目一样不可取）Without ruling out the other possibilities, the author cannot stand for his conjecture.
In conclusion, the argument is not convincing as it stands. To convince us that the funding for the park and museum should be increased significantly, the author should provide concrete evidence on the actual number of travelers among those passengers of flight or train to Eliottown, and the number of travelers who visited the new central park and museum.（结尾再加多一句话就好了~~~）
对题目的引用可以进一步的省略，有些思维上的过度衔接再详尽一点，使读者更为明晰你的思想~~

[ 本帖最后由 vry 于 2008-8-9 22:52 编辑 ]

apjackUID: 2381599

Thx for your comment. Tiger.

I will revise it.

apjackUID: 2381599

To come to the conclusion that the funding for the park and museum should be increased significantly as they contributed greatly to Eliottown’s tourism industry, the author substantiated by several facts that are suspicious / skeptical(这个表示怀疑的，而不是可疑的) and unwarranted.

First,（逗号）the increasing number of people traveled to Eliottown via flight and train might distorted the success of tourism in that city.（语法错误，distorted 作用在 the increasing上， the success没有动词了.）The author cities in the argument that the passenger increment of both fight and train has increased more than twice times over the past two years, for example, by flight from 40,000 to 100,000, and by train from 20,000 to 50,000. However, the author overlooks the actual number of passengers who want to have an excursion here. It is entirely possible that Eliottown is a cosmopolis, most of the passengers are businessmen who have large exhibition or have significant meeting with clients and investors. It is also possible that most of the passengers are immigrants who come here because of the prevalent of immigration trend in recent years; thereby distorting the tourism success in supporting the fact that the tourism industry in Eliotton is increasing.（进一步提出如何确定旅游人数，更好 --- For suggestion, is it better to put in the conclusion paragraph or in the place allowing our challenging?）##1


Even if we consider the purpose of most of the passengers arrived to Eliottown is traveling. However, the author unfairly assumes that most of the tourists coming to Eliottown last year were merely due to the charm of the newly established central park and museum of modern art. It is not necessarily to be the case. The author fails to conceive other possibility respects why people visit Eliottown. Perhaps people visit this city because of her ancient architectures such as Catholic Church, majestic palace and other grand buildings. Or perhaps people going to Eliottown are simply because here is a very large shopping heaven in adjacent areas.  More perhaps visitors arrived as a result of several international events, for instance, Olympic Game or FIFA World Cup was held in Eliottown recent years. In short, without ruling out these and other possible explanations why people come to this city, the author cannot reasonably support his assumption that most of the visiting people coming to Elitottown are attributed to the new central park and museum.（举出可能性之后在总结一下就好了~~ --- You mean the summary is a little bit long?）## 2


The last flaw of the argument is that the author wrongly infers that investing heavily on the two attractive spots, park and museum, would further abet the growing of tourism in Eliottown. First, the attractive of central park and museum is ambiguous and doubtful as it discussed above. If both central park and museum are not favor by visitors, is it still worth to invest significantly to them? Second, it is no guarantee that the increasing the funding to the two tourism spots would contribute to a better tourism in future. It is completely possible that internationally economic depression will happen next year; therefore tourism market is extremely desperate and many people won’t go traveling. （举出最坏情况最有可能合题目一样不可取 --- 唔多明白, Do you mean we need to give more reasonable possibility?）Without ruling out the other possibility that would influence the development of tourism industry, the author cannot stand for his conjecture.
## 3

In conclusion, the argument is not convincing as it stands. To convince us that the funding for the park and museum should be increased significantly, the author should provide concrete evidence on the actual number of travelers among those passengers of flight or train to Eliottown, and the number of travelers who visited the new central park and museum.（结尾再加多一句话就好了~~~）


对题目的引用可以进一步的省略，有些思维上的过度衔接再详尽一点，使读者更为明晰你的思想~~


To vry

I have three questions marked by 1, 2 and 3.

[ 本帖最后由 apjack 于 2008-8-10 13:17 编辑 ]

vryUID: 2288609

第一点：不仅仅指出问题，如果能提出解决问题的建议就好了~~~比如说针对旅游人数的统计~等等
第二点：你提出要排除其他可能性的影响，进一步说明如何排除，更好，比如说 new Central Park and Museum of Modern Art 在所有游客中的知名度的调查，收益比重的分析等等
第三点：你相对于题目给出的好的可能性，给了一个坏的情况。但是这样不够，你需要说明，这样单纯的猜想是不够的，要考虑全面，并找出真相~~等等~~~

你的语句要在逻辑上做好衔接，要说到的话不要省略。让读者更明白你的目的。最好能指出改善的建议。