GRE Argument Essay 233
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.”
The above article appeared as a letter to the head of the tourism bureau on the island of Tria. The arguer wants to recommend that people should be charged for using beaches. The first argument presented by the arguer in support of his stand is that the charging would reduce the number of people from using the beaches and the funds thus raised would be used for replenishing the sand. The second argument presented by the arguer in support of his stand is an example of a nearby island Batia, where replenishing the sand was done to protect buildings. The arguer further states that this will help protect buildings along the shores of Tria also and the buildings would also be saved from severe storms. Finally, the arguer states that this would not only make the beaches more attractive but the beaches would also be preserved and the area’s tourist industry will improve over the long term. The arguments presented by the arguer seem to be very vague and unconvincing.
The first argument presented by the arguer regarding charging people for using beaches and raising funds is a very negative one. The arguer fails to estimate the consequences of taking such a step as it could result in tourists withdrawing from the beach of Tria. The arguer has also not mentioned the amount to be charged from the tourists as if it is more then people would not prefer to come to this beach and if it is less then it would not be sufficient to raise the funds for replenishing sand. The arguer has also not mentioned whether every person using the beach would be charged or only tourists would be charged. If the nearby residents are using beach for walks then this step would be disapproved by them
The second argument presented by the arguer is that the in the nearby island of Batia the same solution was adopted for protecting the buildings and this solution would also be used in Tria to protect the buildings. The arguer has not mentioned what the severity of problem in Batia was. It is possible that the problem there was not as serious as it is in Tria or may be Tria’s problem is trivial and needs less concern. The arguer has also not mentioned whether the solution was a success or failure in the island of Batia.
Finally, the arguer states that this solution would not only protect the buildings but also preserve the beaches and this would further attract tourists in the long run. The arguer seems to very be confused in his recommendation. If arguer wants to preserve the beach of Tria then tourism should be banned from this particular beach. Moreover, if there are buildings nearby then it is more important to first secure those than encourage tourism.
All the recommendations made by the arguer are without any substantial explanation. Therefore, the recommendation of the arguer should not be accepted.