argument42 有拍必回，期待你的砖头

sallyxinduUID: 2131253

42The 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."
Outline
1，        到机场的人数增加了，但是这些人并不一定是参加这种生态旅游的，有可能是其他形式的游览，
2，        人均收入增加有可能是其他产业的收入增加了许多，而旅游是减少了的，但平均下来还是增加了
3，        并不一顶说生态旅游就是有利于环境的，也许生态环境只是带游客游览环境很好的山水风光，但是，有可能这些原本环境很好的地方因为游人的增加被破坏了，这样反倒是破坏环境的
4，        B的专家对P也许并不适用，每个地区的特点不一样，也许在B适合的在P反倒引起负面效果
正文
The argument presents by the arguer, at fist glance, seems to be plausible due to relevant premises the arguer cites, such as increase of number of foreign visiters, per capita income hike and so forth. Upon closer inspection, however, all the flaws concealed in the auther’s reasonging will be demonstrated in that the auher fails to take into consideration other facters,which,more often than not, carry the domitant weight in evaluating the auther’s assumption.

First of all, the argument musters no surfficient evidence which lends to back up the developer’s declaration that all the foreign visitors arriving at B are for the purpose of participating in the ecotourism. In this sense, there lies the inevitable likelihood that most of the tourists come to B so as to take other kinds of entertainments instead of ecotourism. For example. To visite museum, to have fun in the mordern magic parks,etc. If this turns out to be the case,the larger population of tourists cannot account for B’s prosperous trend of ecotourism.

What’s more, in most events, the per capita is not convincing in that this result is the average figure of income of every person employed in versatile occupations, consequently, it cannot be denied that it is possible that the per capita income of other fields is exceedingly high whle that in ecotourism industray remains in the underlying leverl although the final income takes on a ascending trend.

In addition, it’s not necessary that ecotourism is conducive to environment even though it means ecologically sound tourism. Consider, whom is the “sound” for? Tourists or environment? There’s no definite indication in the statement. Under such a circumstance,ecotourism may do no good to environment, or even detrimental to ecological balance if “sound” is only the feeling of visitors as opposed to environment per se. Deep down, this is nowhere more true than on the issue that the more the tourists are, the more likely that the environment will be destroyed in light of the waste visitors throw which are fraught with germina which is contagious and therefore bears the high chance to bring upon that region ecological demolishment, and the deadly influence of carbon dioxide’s continuoous rising, the excessiveness of which will inextricably break the ecological balance, thus destroying the evironment.

Finally, different regions are receptive to different types of directors in that every concrete situation of B, more offen than not, differs from that of P.  Based on such a premise, it’s preposterous to conduct a comparison between the two and draw the groundless conclusion at length. Say, if P is an urban area with advanced facilities and people’s open notion of junketing while B is located in outskirt where transportation is not convenient so that it’s almost impossible for tourists to visit there, let alone having any fun there.

In closing, the developer provides us with no well thought out logic to convince us that his/her assumption is reasonable. Far more detaild explanations such as the benign bearing of ecotourism on environment, the belivable large number of ecotourism toursits and so forth should be exerted to back up the arguer’s inference.

[ Last edited by sallyxindu on 2005-12-24 at 16:17 ]