GRE写作官方题库高频ARGUMENT题目满分范文分享：charge people for using beach
- 2020年05月18日15:36 来源：小站整理
- 参与（0） 阅读（153）
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."
This letter's author recommends charging fees for public access to Tria's beaches as means of raising funds for the purpose of saving Tria's tourist industry. The author reasons that while beach-access fees would reduce the number of beachgoers, it would provide revenue for replenishing beach sand needed to protect nearby buildings. The measures would thereby enhance the area's attractiveness lending to long-term improvement. To support the argument the author indicates that on a nearby island, beach sand was replenished thereby reducing the risk of storm damage to buildings. The argument is not entirely convincing for the following reasons.
First of all, the assumptions regarding the effects of the proposed beach-access fees weaken the argument. The author ignores the possibility that charging fees might deter so many tourists that Tria would be worse off overall or that the vast majority of Tria's tourists and residents alike would happily pay for beach access. In either case, adopting the author's proposal might harm, rather than benefit, Tria's tourist industry in the long run.
Also consider the case of nearby Batia where replenishing beach sand has served to protect shoreline buildings. Tria may not be able to achieve the same protective measures due to some geographical difference between the two islands. Perhaps Batia is in a far better position than Tria financially to replenish its sand on a continual basis. In short, the argument fails to present any evidence indicating that the islands are, in all practical purposes, the same and that the proposed measures would have the same desired effect.
Finally, let’s also take into account the fact that even if replenishing Tria's beach sand is financially feasible and would protect nearby buildings, no evidence present indicates that Tria's tourist industry would be saved. Perhaps Tria's tourist appeal has little or nothing to do with the beach and nearby buildings. For that matter, perhaps Tria's tourist appeal would be greater with fewer buildings along the coast. The author’s argument isn’t compelling because there is no link between the wellbeing of the buildings along the coast to the overall health of the tourist industry.