3.1 小鸡快跑作文敢死队 Argument 42

longxuUID: 2290268

TOPIC: ARGUMENT42 - The following appearedin a proposal from the economic minister of the country of Paraterra. "Inorder to strengthen its lagging economy, last year the government of the nearbycountry of Bellegea began an advertising campaign to promote ecologically soundtourism (ecotourism). This year the number of foreign visitors arriving atBellegea's main airport doubled, and per capita income in Bellegea increased byten percent. To provide more income for the population of Paraterra and alsopreserve the natural environment of our tiny country, we too should begin topromote ecotourism. To ensure that our advertising campaign is successful, weshould hire the current director of Bellegea's National Tourism Office as aconsultant for the campaign."

The argument concludes that in order toprovide more income for the population of Paraerra(P) and preserve the naturalenvironment, P should hire the director of National Tourism Office ofBellegea(B) as a consultant for P. To support the conclusion, the author presentsthe evidence that after B promote the ecotoursim, the income and visitor hasincreased. However, the evidence and comparison between B and P , upon whichthe conclusion depends, is unconvincing and dubious in some critical aspects.

First of all, the author fails to take intoconsideration the possibility that whether the number of doubled visitors andthe income which increased by ten percent in P are more than number of B. It isvery likely that though the number of foreign tourists have greatly increased,the number is still less than the B's. In addition, even though the number of foreignvisitors has increased as they anticipate, it is not certainly conducive to preservethe natural environment in P with a large number of visitors. Thus it is notreasonable for B to give up the current tourism for the so-called ecotourism.

Next point, the implicated similaritiesbetween P and B are insufficient to draw the conclusion that if B takes thesame measures as B, P will suffer the fate similar to P. Perhaps, P has amarvelous forest or certain beautiful resort which is famous in our world,while P does not have the similar places in its tine country. So, the arguerfails to provide persuasive evidence to justify its assumption about theanalogy between P and B.

Last but not least, the assumption to hiredirector of B' Nation Tourism Office as a consultant for the campaign of B.Perhaps, the situation in P is evidently different from B, which will greatly confusethe director from B and B cannot make the advertising campaign as good as they assume.Or perhaps, the director is not the main leader in this project and he did not havemuch idea about how to advertise for tourism. Therefore, the author'sassumption about to employ the director of B is not well reasoned.

To sum up, the argument is indeed logical unsoundwith the existing evidence about B and the assumptions about P. To assess it, Ineed to know more information about: (1) whether the increased number is muchmore than the number of P; (2) whether B has the same natural environment as P;(3) whether the director in B is the main leader in the project of ecotourism. Tobetter evaluate the campaign, the arguer should demonstrate clear evidence thatthe environment of P is ready to accept more visitors than now.