argument42 "决战830拍砖组" 8月25日作业 大家不要留情面啊，狠批啊！

nanziUID: 2126362

严重超时，用了四十多分钟。
只是为了试验一下模版，大家帮忙看一下通不通顺，谢各位了！！

Argument 42:
Topic
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.'

Answer:
In this argument, the author recommends that the country of Paraterra(P) should promote ecotourism and hire the current director of Bellegea(B)’s National Tourism Office as a consultant for the campain. To substantiate the recommendation, the author cites the example of B country in econonmic increasing after implementing the ecotourism. A careful scrutiny will reveal several significant problems, which render the argument untenable.

A threshold problem with this argument is that one cannot distinguish cause-and –effect relationship between the increasing economical situation in B country and its ecotourism. In other words, ecotourism, in all likelihood, is not responsible for economical enhancing in B country. A myriad of other factors—such as industrial or agricultural development, foreign or national investment—might play dominant roles and thus overshadow importance of ecotourism in determining prosper in B’s economy.

Moreover, the author unfairly assumes that the doubled foreign visitors arriving at B’s main airport are due to the popularity of ecotourism. However, no evidence is provided to support that this is the case, nor does the author establish a causal relationship between the doubled foreign visitors and ecotourism. It is highly possible that these foreign visitors are just ones who are required to attend significant business conferences held in B country, or that B airport is not their terminal but an access to reach other places. Lacking evidence to link doubled foreign passengers and ecotourism, it is presumptuous to suggest that ecotourism is responsible for the doubled foreign passengers in B country.

Even assuming that ecotourism enhanced B country’s economical status quo, unwarranted is the author’s assumption that the two countrys are similar enough to justify an analogical deduction. In all likelihood, the discrepancies between the two countrys of B and P—such as natural environment, humanity culture and exploring viability—would render the course of action that benefits B country futile to P country.

Even if ecotourism is suitable for P country and would benefit its economical condition, the suggestion that P country should hire the current director of Bellegea's National Tourism Office as a consultant for the campaign can be dubious. The director of B country is probably unfamiliar with the situation in P country to establish a ecotourism system at all. As a result, the director of B country is not able to offer effective or suitable suggestions for P country in their constitution of ecotourism. It is very likely that people other than the director of B country would better induct ecotourism in P country. Without considering and ruling out these and other factors, the author cannot confidently conclude that hiring the current director of Bellegea's National Tourism Office as a consultant is necessary and optimal for P country.

In sum, the argument is unconvincing as it stands. To strenthen the argument, the author should provide clear evidence that the foreign passengers in B’s airport are ecotourists of B country, and that the capital income increase in due to ecotourism. To better assess the recommendation, we need more specific information concerning conditions for P country to develop ecotourism.

[ Last edited by staralways on 2005-8-26 at 11:31 ]

momo56288860UID: 191433

https://bbs.gter.net/viewthread.php?tid=326117

https://bbs.gter.net/viewthread.php?tid=326015

momo56288860UID: 191433

In this argument, the author recommends that the country of Paraterra(P) should promote ecotourism and hire the current director of Bellegea(B)’s National Tourism Office as a consultant for the campain. To substantiate the recommendation, the author cites the example of B country in econonmic//economical// increasing after implementing the ecotourism//advertising campaign to ecotourism//. A careful scrutiny will reveal several significant problems//个人觉得scrutiny不能做主语，仅供参考//, which render the argument untenable.

A threshold problem with this argument is that one cannot distinguish cause-and –effect relationship between the increasing economical situation in B country//用B表示就可以了吧，下同// and its ecotourism. In other words, ecotourism, in all likelihood, is not responsible for economical enhancing in B country. A myriad of other factors//不明白意思//—such as industrial or agricultural development, foreign or national investment—might play dominant roles and thus overshadow importance of ecotourism in determining prosper in B’s economy.

Moreover, the author unfairly assumes that the doubled foreign visitors arriving at B’s main airport are due to the popularity of ecotourism. However, no evidence is provided to support that this is the case, nor does the author establish a causal relationship between the doubled foreign visitors and ecotourism. It is highly possible that these foreign visitors are just ones who are required to attend significant business conferences held in B country, or that B airport is not their terminal but an access to reach other places //这一句很好，赞//. Lacking evidence to link doubled foreign passengers and ecotourism, it is presumptuous to suggest that ecotourism is responsible for the doubled foreign passengers in B country.

Even assuming that ecotourism enhanced B country’s economical status quo//？//, unwarranted is the author’s assumption that the two countrys//countries// are similar enough to justify an analogical deduction. In all likelihood, the discrepancies between the two countrys of B and P—such as natural environment, humanity culture and exploring viability—would render the course of action that benefits B country futile to P country//句子读起来不是很顺，有时候不要把句子故意弄得太长了//.
Even if ecotourism is suitable for P country and would benefit its economical condition, the suggestion that P country should hire the current director of Bellegea's National Tourism Office as a consultant for the campaign can be dubious//没有提到B的advertise,严重失误啊//. The director of B country is probably unfamiliar with the situation in P country to establish a ecotourism system at all. As a result, the director of B country is not able to offer effective or suitable suggestions for P country in their constitution of ecotourism. It is very likely that people other than the director of B country would better induct ecotourism in P country. Without considering and ruling out these and other factors, the author cannot confidently conclude that hiring the current director of Bellegea's National Tourism Office as a consultant is necessary and optimal for P country.//这一段感觉有点跑题目了，因为没有提到B的广告作用或没有作用，因为题目里面began an advertising campaign to promote ecologically sound tourism (ecotourism).//

In sum, the argument is unconvincing as it stands. To strenthen//strengthen// the argument, the author should provide clear evidence that the foreign passengers in B’s airport are ecotourists of B country, and that the capital income increase in due to ecotourism. To better assess the recommendation, we need more specific information concerning conditions for P country to develop ecotourism.

//整体感觉还行，就是觉得句子有点故意造成长句，还有最后一个论述似乎有点问题，其他的结构方面没有多大问题。。//