注册 登录  
 加关注
   显示下一条  |  关闭
温馨提示!由于新浪微博认证机制调整,您的新浪微博帐号绑定已过期,请重新绑定!立即重新绑定新浪微博》  |  关闭

Bioinformatics home

 
 
 

日志

 
 

argument  

2008-08-04 23:44:02|  分类: GRE |  标签: |举报 |字号 订阅

  下载LOFTER 我的照片书  |

 

"Erosion of beach sand along the shores of Tria Island is a serious threat to our island

and our tourist industry. In order to stop the erosion, we should charge people for using

the beaches. Although this solution may annoy a few tourists in the short term, it will

reduce the number of people using the beaches and will raise money for replenishing the

sand. Replenishing the sand, as was done to protect buildings on the nearby island of

Batia, will help protect buildings along our shores, thereby reducing these buildings'

risk of additional damage from severe storms. And since the areas along the shore will be

more attractive as a result, the beaches will be preserved and the area's tourist

industry will improve over the long term."

 

In the letter, the author draws the conclusion that Tria's tourist industry will improve

over the long term by charging user for Tria's island sand because of erosion of beach

sand threat. To further prove the benefit of charging, the author also list the evidence

that charging will reduce the number of people using the beaches and favor the collection

of fund for replenishing the sand. The author points out that replenish sand can help

protect buildings nearby island from server storms and contributes to be more attractive

for the island and save the beach. In my opinion, however, the author provide little

credible evidence to support his idea as following reason.

To begin with, the author unfairly assume that people who using beaches sand are

responsible for erosion of beach sand along the shores of Tria Island. There is no

exactly information and corresponding data to support the opinion. It is highly possible

that human interference effect is so subtle that there is nearly no threaten to beaches.

Perhaps, the threat results from the sea ebb which washes out sand into sea. Without

making clear the exact reason for erosion, it is unreasonable to charge user for Tria's

island sand and cause passive effect to local tourist.

Even if we believe that user for Tria's island sand are responsible for erosion, we can't

know that whether the reducing number of tourist influencing by charging is a few or more

and whether the fund for replenishing sand led by charging will rise. The author's view

is so abstract that we can't be persuade to accept the idea. It is not necessary the case

that impact from charging can contribute to increase the fund. It is entirely possible

that execute of charging would generate huge negative impact and cause to reduce a great

deal of tourist. Therefore, the fund's source is highly suspicious.

Additionally, the author unjustifiable considers that replenishing sand favors buildings safety on the nearby island of Batia. In common sense, building steady is determined by various factors like building structure, texture, and other factors. The argument provides no evidence that replenishing sand contributes to protect buildings on the nearby island of Batia. Even if it works in Batia, it is not the case for Tria as the beach’s circumstance may different from Batia. Perhaps, fallacy of building in Tria is not in sand but other factors. Without cogent proof, the author can’t persuade me to accept his idea.

 In sum, the evidence provided by the author is so highly suspicious and we can’t believe that the beaches will be preserved and Tria 's tourist industry will improve over the long term.

  评论这张
 
阅读(505)| 评论(0)
推荐 转载

历史上的今天

在LOFTER的更多文章

评论

<#--最新日志,群博日志--> <#--推荐日志--> <#--引用记录--> <#--博主推荐--> <#--随机阅读--> <#--首页推荐--> <#--历史上的今天--> <#--被推荐日志--> <#--上一篇,下一篇--> <#-- 热度 --> <#-- 网易新闻广告 --> <#--右边模块结构--> <#--评论模块结构--> <#--引用模块结构--> <#--博主发起的投票-->
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

页脚

网易公司版权所有 ©1997-2017