argument42 寄托4人组 8月25日作业

meautoUID: 2116250

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 capital 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.
[灭有写B的环境问题。。。汗。。。]

In this proposal, the arguer recommends that to increase the income for people in Paraterra and to preserve its natural environment, Paraterra should begin to promote ecotourism and employ current director of Bellegea’s National Tourism Office as consultant. However, under a close scrutiny, this proposal bears several critical flaws.

To begin with, arguer unsubstantially relies on the increase of foreign visitors arriving at Bellegea’s main airport as an evidence of its economic boost. For one thing, for what reason do foreign visitors come to Bellegea is not provided by the proposal. If most of them come to Bellegea for academic conferences or cross-national studies, instead of business activities or so, they might contribute little to economy of Bellegea. For another, we do not know the specific number of all the foreign visitors for the late two years. After all, the number is based on the situation of Bellegea’s main airport, too limited to represent the general trend: perhaps most visitors opt going to Bellegea by train or by boat. What is more, it is entirely possible that the number of foreign visitors, though doubled this year, might still be negligibly small to draw any meaningful conclusion from.

Even granted that increase of foreign visitors, together with the soar of per capital income, indicates the improvement of Bellegea’s economy, the arguer unfairly assumes that it is the ecotourism that accounts for the economic boost. Though an advertising campaign was carried out in Bellegea, it might not necessarily be followed by a successful ecotourism project. If the advertising was in itself a total failure, or the charge for the ecotourism surpassed a generally affordable amount, then the ecotourism program may not carry well, contrary to what the arguer implies. Assuming the success of ecotourism, it is groundless to judge it as the only explanation for the economic boost of Bellegea, which may result form other factors: perhaps the government and local authorities have adopted a series of tax-favor policies since last year, attracting many investments to the Bellegea. Or perhaps new technology had been introduced to local industries, thus promoted the efficiency of workers as a whole, further leading to more personally income. Without ruling out these possibilities, the arguer cannot convince me the causal relationship between advanced economy of Bellegea and its ecotourism program.

Granted that improvement in Bellegea’s economy was due to ecotourism, this project might not necessarily work as well in Peraterra. Possible is that the social orders and transportation might be relatively good in Bellegea, whereas in Peraterra robbery and theft are rather common, and it is effort-taking to go to another place. If so, no matter how many beautiful natural sites Peraterra could offer to its tourists, people would not travel there, for safety and convenience are always put as priorities when people travel. In short, the proposed ecotourism may not bring many people to Paraterra, let alone more income.

Finally, the arguer assumes that to ensure a successful advertising campaign, the economic minister of Paraterra should hire director of Bellegea’s National Tourism Office. Whether the advertising campaign in Bellegea was successful is totally unknown; and more importantly, the recommended director may have nothing to do with it. Unless the arguer can convince us that person played a crucial role in Bellegea’s advertising campaign, the suggested employment should not be taken seriously.

In conclusion, this proposal is groundless in several ways. The only time the arguer can claim the need of ecotourism and the employment of the mentioned director is when he/she proves them to be truly beneficial to Bellegea’s population income, and its natural environment.

tangjihedeUID: 2107695

zhan! 还以为你写的是142。。。

tangjihedeUID: 2107695

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 capital 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.
[灭有写B的环境问题。。。汗。。。]

In this proposal, the arguer recommends that to increase the income for people in Paraterra and to preserve its natural environment, Paraterra should begin to promote ecotourism and employ current director of Bellegea’s National Tourism Office as consultant. However, under a close scrutiny, this proposal bears several critical flaws.

To begin with,[the] arguer unsubstantially relies on the increase of foreign visitors arriving at Bellegea’s main airport as an evidence of its economic boost.[更关键的是指出没能证明这个策略真的奏效。第一：人数问题。] For one thing, for what reason do foreign visitors come to Bellegea is not provided by the proposal. If most of them come to Bellegea for academic conferences or cross-national studies, instead of business activities or so, they might contribute little to economy of Bellegea. For another, we do not know the specific number of all the foreign visitors for the late two years. After all, the number is based on the situation of Bellegea’s main airport, too limited to represent the general trend: perhaps most visitors opt going to Bellegea by train or by boat. [应该说总人数可能比去年少]What is more, it is entirely possible that the number of foreign visitors, though doubled this year, might still be negligibly small to draw any meaningful conclusion from.

Even granted that increase of foreign visitors, together with the soar of per capital income, indicates[ing从句] the improvement of Bellegea’s economy, the arguer unfairly assumes that it is the ecotourism that accounts for the economic boost. [第二，经济问题] Though an advertising campaign was carried out in Bellegea, it might not necessarily be followed by a successful ecotourism project. If the advertising was in itself a total failure, or the charge for the ecotourism surpassed a generally affordable amount, then the ecotourism program may not carry well, contrary to what the arguer implies. Assuming the success of ecotourism, it is groundless to judge it as the only explanation for the economic boost of Bellegea, which may result form other factors: perhaps the government and local authorities have adopted a series of tax-favor policies since last year, attracting many investments to the Bellegea. Or perhaps new technology had been introduced to local industries,[and] thus promoted the efficiency of workers as a whole, further leading to more [personally???] income. Without ruling out these possibilities, the arguer cannot convince me the causal relationship between advanced economy of Bellegea and its ecotourism program.[good]

Granted that improvement in Bellegea’s economy was due to ecotourism, this project might not necessarily work as well in Peraterra. Possible is that the social orders and transportation might be relatively good in Bellegea, whereas in Peraterra robbery and theft are rather common, and it is effort-taking to go to another place. If so, no matter how many beautiful natural sites Peraterra could offer to its tourists, people would not travel there, for safety and convenience are always put as priorities when people travel. In short, the proposed ecotourism may not bring many people to Paraterra, let alone more income.[还可以说这个地方可能根本就没有生态旅游方面的资源]

Finally, the arguer assumes that to ensure a successful advertising campaign, the economic minister of Paraterra should hire director of Bellegea’s National Tourism Office. Whether the advertising campaign in Bellegea was successful is totally unknown; and more importantly, the recommended director may have nothing to do with it. Unless the arguer can convince us that person played a crucial role in Bellegea’s advertising campaign, the suggested employment should not be taken seriously.[还应该说就算他在B成功，在p也不一定成功。不了解国情。]

In conclusion, this proposal is groundless in several ways. The only time the arguer can claim the need of ecotourism and the employment of the mentioned director is when he/she proves them to be truly beneficial to Bellegea’s population income, and its natural environment.
[给个5.8吧。如果一上来点出生态政策在B未必成功就更好了。]

bridgewalkerUID: 208595

写这么多？我眼镜都掉啦~

meautoUID: 2116250

人数少更狠些啊
其他的收下了