First post. Here goes:
Quote:
“ The tourism tax revenues of Sun City will continue to fall unless the city government takes action to bring our health resort industry up to the standard of other tourist destinations in our region. Our main competitor for tourists, Warm Springs City, completed two state-of-the-art spa complexes last year, and their level of tourism increased by over 20 percent; Sun City ’ s tourist level, however, actually declined for the fifth year in a row. If the city government does not sponsor the construction of a spa in Sun City, there is no chance that these trends will reverse. ”
Discuss how well-reasoned you find the above argument. In your discussion, be sure to analyze the line of reasoning and the use of evidence in the argument. For example, you may need to consider what questionable assumptions underlie the author ’ s thinking and what alternative explanations or counter-examples might weaken the conclusion. You can also discuss what sort of evidence would strengthen or refute the argument, what changes in the argument would make it more logically sound, and what, if anything, would help you to better evaluate its conclusion.
In the paragraph above, the author argues for a new spa to be constructed by the government in order to increase tourism spending in the region. The author cited a neighboring town, Warm Springs City, which recently constructed two new state-of-the-art spas that led to an increase in tourism spending for the town. Though the author may feel passionate about a construction of the new spa, the evidence provided do not provide enough justification to go forward with the construction.
First, the author fails to explain why there is a direct correlation between a new spa and an increase tourism spending in any region. Furthermore, the author assumes the success for Warm Springs City will translate to an equal amount of success to Sun City. Perhaps Warm Springs City is already an internationally known vacation resort and the addition of a spa would therefore increase its value to vacation goers.
Second, the author mentions a decrease in tourism for the fifth consecutive year. Again, the author fails to mention what has led to the decrease in tourism for the fifth consecutive year. It could be due to a drastic rise in crime in the region or a natural disaster which had an effect on all business in the city, therefore making it an unappealing vacation destination.
Third, the author argues the government should be responsible for the construction of the spas. Again, the author fails to mention why the government has a responsibility to the city to construct a state-of-the-art spa to increase tourism. Perhaps it should be the responsibility of the private sector to increase tourism to the region.
Last, the author seems to believe that a state-of-the-art spa is the sole remedy to its tourism problems. It may very well be that a spa would solve Sun City’s tourism problems, but the author does not explain alternative methods to increase tourism spending. Perhaps a jazz museum or a rock and roll museum would be a welcomed addition to the region.
While assessing the validity of the argument, I do not find the author’s evidence or reasoning to be conclusive enough
close
