- UID
- 677080
- 在线时间
- 小时
- 注册时间
- 2011-9-28
- 最后登录
- 1970-1-1
- 主题
- 帖子
- 性别
- 保密
|
扣除读题思考时间，顺利进入30min，余下时间还足够检查一遍。
提纲：
1. 海滩腐蚀原因是否人为？
2. 填沙子能否修复海滩？
3. 额外收费是否足以募集资金修复海滩？
关于这个问题，我一时只想到了这三点。大家还有什么想法呢？
[42] [The following is a letter to the head of the tourism bureau on the island of Tria.]
”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 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 beaches and buildings in the area will be preserved, Tria's tourist industry will improve over the long term."
[Write a response in which you discuss what specific evidence is needed to evaluate the argument and explain how the evidence would weaken or strengthen the argument.]
老G：152
In order to protect the beaches from further erosion for a better island and tourist industry, the speaker suggests a policy of charging people for using the beaches. He considers this method will function well due to the less usage of beaches and raising money for replenishing sand to improve the environment of the beaches.However, because of a shortage of necessary evidence to dismiss the possibilities behind his assumptions in this reasoning, his argument seems completely unconvincing and fallacious.
First off, he considers the main reason for the erosion of the beaches is the over usage by people. How can he prove it? After all no evidence shows that the erosion is a man-made result. The erosion could be fairly likely caused by the natural issues, like the pH of the sea water or the fierce climate changes; it can also be induced by the air pollution of the industry, or acid rains. If one or more than one of these possible factors are the real reasons for this erosion, the charging policy simply cannot make any sense in protecting the beaches from further erosion.
Secondly, the writer presumes that replenishing the sand to the beaches can function well to recover the eroded beaches. Is there any convincing evidence for that statement? The only seeming proof is the analogue with the building protection by replenishing sand. However, are they the same issue? Beaches are known as some kind of natural products, part of the complicated biological system, while the buildings are constructed by humans with materials of simple components compared to the nature. The conditions of the sand in the beaches could be fairly complex, regarding the pH, the components, the moisture contents and even the living organisms. I suppose this method of replenishing the sand may even damage the biological balance of the beach systems, let alone recovering it.
Finally, even if the main reason for the erosion is from man-made issues and the recovering method works, there still no evidence showing whether the fines from charging the users can smoothly make up the financing. There is no reference to show how many visitors would like to pay for using this beach. Also, the erosion issue may decrease the attraction of the beaches, making it less profitable to people, let alone the barrier of charging fine itself. In fact, there could be very few people who would like to pay for the beaches. If so, I suppose we cannot raise enough money for the recovering issues unless there are funding from the government or some private sources.
In sum, the writer thinks about this issue so partially as to dismiss all other possibilities, therefore fail to provide necessary evidence discussed before to clarify the puzzles. This argument needs an in-depth scrutiny with all necessary evidence. Otherwise, no conclusion can be obtained.
(473—25min) |
|
京公网安备11010202008513号 京ICP证101109号 京ICP备12012021号
发表于 2011-10-7 20:48:16
收藏
收藏
楼主
