The country of Bonaria held a major soccer event five years ago. Therefore, if the country continues to hold major sport events, tourism will increase rapidly in the country and thus bring benefits to the country's economy.
The Bonaria cites the past experience to conclude that if the sport events can be holed again in the country, the country's economy will be boosted. However, even though the argument, at first glance, appears to be somewhat convincing, but further reflection reveals that it leaves out some significant factors that should be addressed to substantiate the argument. Moreover, the post hoc fallacy makes the argument invalid.
First of all, Bonaria cannot simply build the connection between the major soccer event and the increase in tourism, because those two events may not have direct causal relationship. That is to say, one thing happening before another cannot be took as a cause for the later. For example, John ate a fish in the morning, and then he got sick in the night. Can we just simply make the conclusion that the fish is not fresh? What if the reason why he is sick is due to swimming in a cold sea last night? Thus, Bonaria should analyze the whole situation first, and then try to find out the supportive evidence to prove that the connection between sport event and tourism is highly related.
In addition, Bonaria also fails to consider other factors that might affect the tourism. The economic trend changes all the time, and there are plenty of ways to boost the country's economy. The success of soccer event five years ago may not bring the same effect under today's situation. In other words, what works for past might not work for now as well. For instance, people were enthusiastic in sport before, but now they are more interesting in the technology. Thus, the best way to improve Bonaria's economy is to hold a high-tech exposition, rather then have a sport event. Therefore, it is better for Bonaria to do more researches in order to find out what is the real factor that influences the economy the most.
In conclusion, the argument is not logically convincing. Bonaria not only fails to consider other factors before planing a proposal, but also forgets to clarify the causal relationship. To strengthen the argument, Bonaria would have to provide additional evidence for its proposal that holding a sort event can really boost its tourism.
The Bonaria cites the past experience to conclude that if the sport events can be holed again in the country, the country's economy will be boosted. However, even though the argument, at first glance, appears to be somewhat convincing, but further reflection reveals that it leaves out some significant factors that should be addressed to substantiate the argument. Moreover, the post hoc fallacy makes the argument invalid.
First of all, Bonaria cannot simply build the connection between the major soccer event and the increase in tourism, because those two events may not have direct causal relationship. That is to say, one thing happening before another cannot be took as a cause for the later. For example, John ate a fish in the morning, and then he got sick in the night. Can we just simply make the conclusion that the fish is not fresh? What if the reason why he is sick is due to swimming in a cold sea last night? Thus, Bonaria should analyze the whole situation first, and then try to find out the supportive evidence to prove that the connection between sport event and tourism is highly related.
In addition, Bonaria also fails to consider other factors that might affect the tourism. The economic trend changes all the time, and there are plenty of ways to boost the country's economy. The success of soccer event five years ago may not bring the same effect under today's situation. In other words, what works for past might not work for now as well. For instance, people were enthusiastic in sport before, but now they are more interesting in the technology. Thus, the best way to improve Bonaria's economy is to hold a high-tech exposition, rather then have a sport event. Therefore, it is better for Bonaria to do more researches in order to find out what is the real factor that influences the economy the most.
In conclusion, the argument is not logically convincing. Bonaria not only fails to consider other factors before planing a proposal, but also forgets to clarify the causal relationship. To strengthen the argument, Bonaria would have to provide additional evidence for its proposal that holding a sort event can really boost its tourism.
