argument42 PRACTISE小组16次作业，留下链接，有拍必回！

子旋UID: 2196177

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."
Word:620
This argument may be well-present, but not thoroughly reasoned. From the fact of the blooming in ecotourism in Bellegea, it appears, first, that the policy of Bellegea is effective; second, that Paraterra should promote ecotourism to improve the income of people and the natural environment; even that Pareterra should hire their director as a consultant. However, there are many fallacies in this argument in the road of the arguer’s deduction of conclusion.

First of all, the arguer cannot give the evidence that the ecotourism benefits Bellegea indeed. The arguer indicates that the number of foreign visitors doubled and per capita income there increased by ten percent. These facts cannot be fully due to ecotourism. First, the doubled number of foreign visitors may originate from other factors. It is possible that the number of visitors was so scare before, and this doubled number is also not a great one. It is also possible that these visitors are attracted for other causes. There may be a big meeting or exhibition at this year here, or other places of interest exploring these days. Second, we cannot conclude hasty that the per capita income increased for the ecotourism. The income of person chiefly depends on people themselves and there is no evidence here that the income of most people is related with this policy. Even the per capita income increased, we should take other factors into account, such as the whole economic development of Bellegea and the benefit from other industries.

The second fallacy stated is, the arguer fails to consider the feasibility of this policy in Pareterra even though it benefits Bellegea. It maybe true that ecotourism benefits Bellegea so much that the arguer fails to consider whether it also agrees with Pareterra. He makes a fallacy that it will provide more income for the population of Paraterra and also preserve the natural environment of the tiny country. First, if Pareterra is not equipped with a proper condition for tourism, how can ecotourism be applied and benefits people’ income. The situation in Pareterra maybe so bad and there is no tourism resource here. If we devote to promote this project, we should invest greatly but wait for the unknown result that whether visitors would like to prefer this artificial one. What is more, we cannot forecast that it will preserve the natural environment of the country. There is no certification in Bellegea and it is not definite that any form of tourism can preserve the natural land. This duty is mostly depended on people’ consciousness and their behavior.

Further more, the arguer make a hasty generalization that hiring a constant and advertising campaign will lead the success of ecotourism in Pareterra. Even though Pareterra reaches all the prerequisites to develop this effective ecotourism, hiring a constant and applying advertising campaign may not effective. At one hand, it is unequal to own all the effect of ecotourism to the direct of Bellegea's National Tourism Office. He may just carry this project out but do not understand its essence. And he may not acquainte himself with the situations of Pareterra and fails to give effective suggestions as a counselor. At the other hand, advertising campaign is just a formation to propagate ecotourism, we may fail to establish it wholly and gain the benefit without considering idiographic measures and carrying them out step by step.

Above all, this argument looses the basic and fundamental evidence to make its conclusion strong and reliable. It fails to exhibit necessary evidences that Pareterra need to apply this policy to improve its economy. It should be infused with direct facts and connections of them to correct the cause-effect fallacies, and then infers the real conclusion in a increasingly deep order.

yvonnewhuUID: 2202979

This argument may be well-present, but not thoroughly reasoned. From the fact of the blooming in ecotourism in Bellegea, it appears, first, that the policy of Bellegea is effective; second, that Paraterra should promote ecotourism to improve the income of people and the natural environment; even that Pareterra should hire their director as a consultant. However, there are many fallacies in this argument in the road of the arguer’s deduction of conclusion.[第一段比较重要的是要把结论拿出来树立靶子，之后就好攻击了。这里似乎写得有些乱。如果真是要写论证过程的话，可以用 to support the conclusion, the arguer cite... 等形式，参考一下老美的范文可以知道]

First of all, the arguer cannot give[are failing in providing] the evidence that the ecotourism benefits Bellegea indeed. The arguer indicates that the number of foreign visitors doubled and per capita income there increased by ten percent. These facts cannot be fully [merely ]due to ecotourism. First, the doubled number of foreign visitors may originate from other factors. It is possible that the number of visitors was so scare before, and this doubled number is also not a great one. [这一点我没有想到，赞]It is also possible that these visitors are attracted for other causes. There may be a big meeting or exhibition at this year here, or other places of interest exploring these days. Second, we cannot conclude hasty[hastly] that the per capita income increased for the ecotourism. The income of person chiefly depends on people themselves and there is no evidence here that the income of most people is related with this policy. Even the per capita income increased, we should take other factors into account, such as the whole economic development of Bellegea and the benefit from other industries.

The second fallacy stated is[这样的表达方式好像不是太地道], the arguer fails to consider the feasibility of this policy in Pareterra even though it benefits Bellegea.[The arguer fails to take into account possible differences betweeen A and B.] It maybe true that ecotourism benefits Bellegea so much that the arguer fails to consider whether it also agrees with Pareterra. He makes a fallacy that it will provide more income for the population of Paraterra and also preserve the natural environment of the tiny country. First, if Pareterra is not equipped with a proper condition for tourism, how can ecotourism be applied and benefits people’ income. The situation in Pareterra maybe so bad and there is no tourism resource here. If we devote to promote this project, we should invest greatly but wait for the unknown result that whether visitors would like to prefer this artificial one. What is more, we cannot forecast that it will preserve the natural environment of the country. There is no certification in Bellegea and it is not definite that any form of tourism can preserve the natural land. This duty is mostly depended on people’ consciousness and their behavior.

Further more, the arguer make a hasty generalization that hiring a constant and advertising campaign will lead the success of ecotourism in Pareterra. Even though Pareterra reaches all the prerequisites to develop this effective ecotourism, hiring a constant and applying advertising campaign may not effective. At one hand[on the one hand], it is unequal to own all the effect of ecotourism to the direct of Bellegea's National Tourism Office. He may just carry this project out but do not understand its essence. And he may not acquainte himself with the situations of Pareterra and fails to give effective suggestions as a counselor. At the other hand[on the other hand], advertising campaign is just a formation to propagate ecotourism, we may fail to establish it wholly and gain the benefit without considering idiographic measures and carrying them out step by step.

Above all, this argument looses the basic and fundamental evidence to make its conclusion strong and reliable. It fails to exhibit necessary evidences that Pareterra need to apply this policy to improve its economy. It should be infused with direct facts and connections of them to correct the cause-effect fallacies, and then infers the real conclusion in a increasingly deep order.

[这是你第一篇arguement吗？赞啊！那么多字。
不过还是有一些需要提高的，尤其是表达方面，我也存在类似的问题。想想如果逻辑找得再好，如果语言不行，别人也看不明白。 建议多看范文，多多分享感受，呵呵，我也和你一起努力！]

winsome_luoUID: 2146848

This argument may be well-present, but not thoroughly reasoned. From the [fact of the这个可以省掉, 有点啰嗦] blooming in ecotourism in Bellegea, it appears, first, that the policy of Bellegea [is 换成took 可能更形象些] effective; second, that Paraterra should promote ecotourism to improve the income of people and the natural environment; even that Pareterra should hire their director as a consultant. However, there are many fallacies in this argument in the road of the arguer’s deduction of conclusion.[开头很新颖哦, 加油]

First of all, the arguer cannot give the evidence that the ecotourism benefits Bellegea indeed. The arguer indicates that the number of foreign visitors doubled and per capita income there increased by ten percent. These facts cannot be fully due to ecotourism. First, the doubled number of foreign visitors may originate from other factors. It is possible that the number of visitors was so scare before, and this doubled number is also not a great one. It is also possible that these visitors are attracted for other causes. There may be a big meeting or exhibition at this year here, or other places of interest exploring these days. Second, we cannot conclude hasty that the per capita income increased for the ecotourism. The income of person chiefly depends on people themselves and there is no evidence here that the income of most people is related with this policy. Even the per capita income increased, we should take other factors into account, such as the whole economic development of Bellegea and the benefit from other industries.

The second fallacy stated is, the arguer fails to consider the feasibility of this policy in Pareterra even though it benefits Bellegea. It maybe true that ecotourism benefits Bellegea so much that the arguer [fails to换个表达, 前一句才用的] consider whether it also agrees with Pareterra. He makes a fallacy that it will provide more income for the population of Paraterra and also preserve the natural environment of the tiny country. First, if Pareterra is not equipped with a proper condition for tourism, how can ecotourism be applied and benefits people’ income. The situation in Pareterra maybe so bad and there is no tourism resource heref we devote to promote this project, we should invest greatly but wait for the unknown result that whether visitors would like to prefer this artificial one. What is more, we cannot forecast that it will preserve the natural environment of the country. There is no certification in Bellegea and it is not definite that any form of tourism can preserve the natural land. This duty is mostly depended on people’ consciousness and their behavior.

Further more, the arguer make a hasty generalization that hiring a constant and advertising campaign will lead the success of ecotourism in Pareterra. Even though Pareterra reaches all the prerequisites to develop this effective ecotourism, hiring a constant and applying advertising campaign may not effective. At one hand, it is unequal to own all the effect of ecotourism to the direct of Bellegea's National Tourism Office. He may just carry this project out but do not understand its essence. And he may not acquainte himself with the situations of Pareterra and fails to give effective suggestions as a counselor. At the other hand, advertising campaign is just a formation to propagate ecotourism, we may fail to establish it wholly and gain the benefit without considering idiographic measures and carrying them out step by step.

Above all, this argument looses the basic and fundamental evidence to make its conclusion strong and reliable. It fails to exhibit necessary evidences that Pareterra need to apply this policy to improve its economy. It should be infused with direct facts and connections of them to correct the cause-effect fallacies, and then infers the real conclusion in a increasingly deep order.
楼主的文章很精彩, 逻辑很清晰,语言也不错,如果能够更加精炼些就好了, 尤其是在总结论据和表达自己观点的时候

请楼主邦我解答一下面这个链接的问题,好么, 谢谢了
https://bbs.gter.net/viewthre ... &extra=page%3D1

顺便也看看这个ARGUE吧,辛苦了
https://bbs.gter.net/viewthre ... &extra=page%3D1