A student is drafting an argumentative essay about the economic effects of sustainable tourism on local communities. The student is synthesizing the following three sources:
Source 1 (Print Article): Argues that sustainable tourism stimulates long-term economic growth for regions, but acknowledges that the transition requires substantial initial capital investment.
Source 2 (Audio Interview): A local artisan explains that small, family-owned businesses cannot afford the high costs of sustainable certification, resulting in them being pushed out of the market by large, corporate hotel chains.
Source 3 (Data Table):
Source 2 (Audio Interview): A local artisan explains that small, family-owned businesses cannot afford the high costs of sustainable certification, resulting in them being pushed out of the market by large, corporate hotel chains.
Source 3 (Data Table):
| Metric | Year 1 | Year 5 |
|---|---|---|
| Total Regional Tourism Revenue | $100 Million | $140 Million |
| Revenue Share for Local Businesses | 60% | 45% |
The student's current draft reads:
'Sustainable tourism provides economic benefits but is very expensive. Source 1 states that it helps the regional economy grow. However, Source 2 mentions that the costs are too high for small businesses. Furthermore, Source 3 shows that the local business revenue share dropped to 45%.'
Which of the following revisions best synthesizes the sources to support a cohesive argument about the nuanced economic impact on local communities?
- ASource 1 argues that sustainable tourism benefits the regional economy despite high transition costs. Furthermore, a local artisan in Source 2 notes that small businesses cannot afford these certifications. Finally, Source 3 demonstrates that while total revenue increased, the local business share decreased to 45%.
- BThe transition to sustainable tourism requires substantial initial capital, which creates an economic disparity; while the region's total revenue increased to $140 Million, the actual share of profits retained by locally-owned businesses experienced a decline to 45% (Sources 1 and 3).
- Although sustainable tourism stimulates overall regional economic growth (Source 1), the prohibitive transition costs highlighted by local artisans (Source 2) inadvertently facilitate corporate consolidation, explaining why the local businesses' market share dropped to 45% even as total revenue surged (Source 3).Cevap
- DThe prohibitive costs of sustainable certification inevitably harm local economies because, as small businesses are pushed out by corporate chains (Source 2), the region experiences a severe reduction in total tourism revenue over the five-year period (Source 3).
Cevap
The revision that integrates the prohibitive costs, the corporate takeover, and the contrasting revenue data into a single cause-and-effect argument.
The correct revision demonstrates true synthesis by putting the sources in conversation with each other. It uses the audio source's detail about corporate consolidation to explain the contrast found in the data table (overall growth but declining local share), creating a complex, unified argument.
Adım Adım Çözüm
Anahtar Kavram
Synthesizing multiple viewpoints and data sources to construct a cohesive argument