ARGUMENT152

TOPIC: ARGUMENT152 - 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 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.
"WORDS: 473 TIME: 01:04:47 DATE: 2008-3-3 21:21:09

At first glance, this statement seems reasonable that charging tourists for using the beaches, along with replenishing the sand, will stop the erosion of beach sand along the shores of Tria Island; however, close scrutiny of evidence unveils that the argument actually suffers from several vital flaws. For example, whether the tourist industry in Tria will improve, after the action of charge, stills remains questionable. Moreover, it is unpersuasive that the arguer takes what happened in Batia for proven conditions, etc. These flaws above would be discussed in details.

In the first place, there is a critical problem about what the speaker considers as evidence, which is that erosion of beach sand threatens the island. The arguer needs to provide more details about this very threat said to be serious. The author may exaggerate the affections that sand erosion has brought up, and under this circumstance, mankind in Tria Island don't have to be nervous. Consequently, the arguer should demonstrate that the risks caused by beach sand erosion are so urgent that something must be done to prevent furthermore damages from taking place.

In the second place, the statement fails to show that replenishing the sand will undoubtedly need investing on this behavior. Islands usually come into exists through thousands of years, or even millions of years' span, in which a variety of bad conditions surely have ever occurred. What threats will obviously influence the environment of island, since the power of human beings living in islands is far less than that of natural threats? From my point of view, what the persons in the island have done probably doesn't affect erosion badly. The true fact is that everything might be fine if they just sleep at home and don't touch the sand for a few days.

At last but not least, the author of this statement might make some mistakes in the utilizing of the example of Batia. What was done in the nearby island of Batia might not be generalized without taking the specific features of Tria into account. The property of the sand in Batia may be sufficiently different from that of Tria. Furthermore, if replenishing the sand is forced to be done in Tria may starts the turning up of unimagined consequences, to the contrary of what the author might expect. In addition, supposing that severe storms almost have never come to destroy Tria in history, it is out of use to refuel the sand.

To summarize, the arguer actually has neglected several flaws as discussed above, and is not convincing as it stands. To solidify the argument, the arguer would have to provide evidence that there is certain relationship between tourists and erosion of beach sand, and further prove that what has been carried out in Batia surely will work if the same things were done in Tria.