Post your essay. Get expert feedback. For free.We're trying to help students improve their writing the hard way. Do you know students who want critical essay reviews from a professor of English Literature? Click like to share. Click here to sign up and post your own essay. We offer no paid services. All reviews are completely free.
GRE Argument Essay: Tourism Bureau On The Island Of Tria - With A Free Essay Review
Prompt: ‘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.’
Tourism is a great source of revenue these days. Every country is taking a lot of measures these days to improve or maintain their tourist spots and thereby attracting many tourists. A similar issue has been raised in the island of Tria. The head of tourism bureau received a letter regarding the erosion of beach sand and a proposal has been made to charge people for using beaches. Though the proposal is aimed at improving the tourism industry over a long term, it ignores the pitfalls in the proposal making a myriad of assumptions.
Avoiding the erosion of sand in beaches is a momentous issue seeking immediate attention. So the authorities have to supply necessary funds to replenish the sand. For that purpose, it won't be wise to collect charges for using the beach. There is no information of how much is the charge will be. If the charge is more, then it will reduce the number of tourists visiting the beach. On the other hand, if the charge is less, then the amount wont be sufficient for replenishing the sand. Furthermore there is no information on what is the amount required and how many years they are planning to impose charges. So the concluded assumption that the tourism industry will improve on a long term is precarious. There are chances of the new proposal leading to a loss to the tourism industry.
The proposal is based on a similar kind of proposal made in another island which is located in Batia. The replenishing of sand was done in that island by collecting charges and that has made them protect the buildings on the shore. There is no information on the similarity between the two islands. Batia might be a smaller beach with more visitors. It might be a very important tourist spot or the only tourist spot in that island and so even if charges were imposed people will not refrain from going to the beach. What if the case was a somersault on the island of Tria? If there are many beaches in Tria or if that beach is a seldom visited one, people will not even think of visiting the beach if they need to pay. Moreover, there is no information on the amount of visitors to the beach in Batia before and after imposing charges. How much was the amount collected? Without knowing all these we cannot blindly extend the proposal to island of Tria.
So to conclude, the proposal cannot be implemented without considering many factors. The authorities might consider if they could get funds from government or even if they want to impose charges they need to work on the details of the issues considered in the essay before taking any positive step towards the proposal.
Much of this review will seem similar to my review of your previous submission, for the essay has the same issues. Your introductory sentences are unnecessary. Sentences like "A similar issue has been raised in the island of Tria" might even be found silly by a curmudgeonly grader who wants to insist that Tria doesn't actually exist, but even the reader who is impressed by your ability to enter into the spirit of the given argument will not be able to give you much credit for these opening sentences. They don't accomplish anything related to the task assigned by the instructions.
Your second paragraph is more or less on the right track. It would be better to explicitly identify the evidence that you think would help evaluate the argument. If you want to know how much the charge will be and for how long it will be imposed, then say something like: "In order to evaluate the argument, we need to know how much the charge will be and how long it will be imposed for." Note however that the evidence you seek should be of a kind that you can clearly use to evaluate the given argument. It's not clear how you could respond, for instance, to the information that the charge will be, say, one dollar per visit, and the charge will be imposed for six months. That specific information, on its own, doesn't clearly help one evaluate the argument. You conclude your second paragraph by saying "there are chances of the new proposal leading to a loss to the tourism industry." That of course is true, but you are being asked to determine what evidence is needed to determine whether the proposal would in fact lead to such a loss or instead to the claimed benefits.
Your next paragraph seems to be based on a misunderstanding of the original proposal. The proposal is to charge visitors to the “beaches” of Tria, not to charge visitors to one specific beach. And, in any case, again in this paragraph, the approach is not quite correct: you don't explicitly identify evidence that would help you to evaluate the argument, and you don't clarify how the evidence you implicitly identify would actually help you evaluate the argument; saying "without knowing all these we cannot blindly extend the proposal to the island of Tria" is just too vague.