The information provided in the article is unfounded because it makes the assumption that all

the pollution in the beach City Harbor is due to the increase of tourism in the past 7 years. The
evidence provided by the author does not have a clear connection between tourism and
pollution.
The primary assumption underlying the authors conclusion is that the only way to reduce the
pollution in the beach city harbor is to reduce the tourism, this conclusion is flaw because it
makes a hasty generalization that all the pollution found in the harbor is due to the trash
produced by tourism activity, the author fails in exploring other sources for the pollution in the
harbor.
Moreover, the author assumes that a reduce in the tourism activity will lead to a reduce in
pollution when this actually may exacerbate the problem because the harbor will lost a
valuable source of income making less popular for the protection attention needed to preserve
a natural environment. The author fails in consider other alternatives like providing information
to the tourist visiting the harbor
The author further assumes that all types of tourism is a destructive one, while in many other
countries a conscious way of encourage tourism has been found and use successfully in the
fight against pollution. Other flaw that the author fails to consider is that tourism season only
last for a couple of weeks so all t
To strengthen this argument, the author could consider other alternatives to fight pollution, the
tourim, by finding the reason for the increase in pollution maybe is a lack of trash cans