my first argument.exam on 29 sep!

[mansi2405]

please evaluate and comment.even a one line comment will be appreciated.

“The Smith Corporation should not be permitted to develop the land that is now part of the
Youngtown Wildlife Preserve. This sanctuary is essential to the survival of the 300 bird species
that live in our area. Although only a small percentage of the land will be sold to Smith,
the proposed development will have disastrous consequences for our area.
The company plans to build a small hotel on
the land. Although they have promised to ensure the preservation of
the sanctuary, there is no way that their plans will do anything but harm the sanctuary.
There are no circumstances under which this sale will benefit out community, which relies on
tourists who visit primarily to see our magnificent bird population.”

I completely disagree with the argument that has been presented above by the author.
The argument is incomplete and biased.It is full of levity and conformism.Perhaps,the author should
have pondered once whether this hotel will harm the sanctuary or not.

The author himself in the argument alleges to the fact that only a small amount of the area will be
sold to The Smith Corporation.How can building a hotel in the sanctuary premises be pernicious to the
sanctuary?The author states that the sanctuary relies on the tourists who visit the same for seeing
the magnificent bird population.So,the main motive of a sanctuary as well as a hotel is same-to attract tourists.
The author is not considering the fact that people who come to visit the sanctuary may consider
staying in the hotel. In this way,the strength of the visitors to the sanctuary will
be accrued because they would be getting accommodation near the sanctuary.So,it would
be easy for the people to visit the sanctuary.Hence, more people may want to visit the sanctuary .

The argument is incomplete because it fails to state the "disastrous consequences" that the hotel
may have on the sanctuary.It appears from the argument that author holds some grudge against
The Smith Corporation. It may be the reason as to why he is criticizing them constantly.

The author states that The Smith Corporation have promised to ensure that they will not thwart the milieu of the sanctuary.
What else then does the author need?He can discuss the problems he thinks might arise with the
manager of The Smith Corporation.In fact,instead of having a parochial attitude,he should be elated
because opening of a hotel in the sanctuary premises will increase the value of the sanctuary
and more people will come to visit it.

To sum up my argument,I think the author should not be chary of The Smith Corporation.He should see
all the pros and cons and expatiate them with the manager of the company.This deal will be very beneficial for the sanctuary.
He should keep his mind overt to all the views.

[sham12345]

mansi . I would give3-4.

You have very good vocabulary usage.

negatives:

1. There is imperative question. You are asking a question in the argument.

2. You would have given more examples than just supporting your view with one point of economics of the sanctuary with the hotel.


So..these are my views.

[mansi2405]

thanx a lot sham.so we can't ask questions in argument?