The author of the letter claims that by replenishing the sand will help preserve the buildings in that area further improving tourism on Tria Island. This claim was made on several unwarranted assumptions which are to be addressed, according to the following presented factors, in order to fully evaluate the viability of the argument provided.
Firstly, the fact that the nearby island of Batia had replenished their sand proved to be fruitful for them, but it doesn’t prove that it will also be fruitful for Tria island also. Perhaps the climatic conditions of Batia island are vastly different when compared to Tria island, and the frequency of the storms occurring on the Batia island is much lower comparatively, and maybe, replenishing the sand was just a minor factor contributing to reducing the risk of additional damage of the buildings in Batia island. Thus this doesn’t provide any evidence that by implementing the same actions could result in same results of different Islands.
Secondly, as mentioned in the argument that replenishing the sand in Batia island helped them protect their building on the shore, there is no evidence proving the fact that by replenishing the sand in Tria island will help preserve the sand and thereby increasing the tourist population. Perhaps, although for the Batia island replenishing the sand had helped them protect the buildings but not the beaches. Thus if the scenario has merit, then the conclusion drawn by the author of the letter will be significantly weakened.
Lastly, the author of the letter suggests that in order to stop erosion they will charge the tourists extra for attending the beach, there is not enough evidence that proves that tourists will be willing to pay extra charges for visiting the beaches. It is possible that tourists are not willing to pay extra which might result in further less money raised which might result in not having enough funds for replenishing the sand. Thus if the scenario holds true, then the conclusion drawn by the author of the letter will not hold water.
In conclusion, the argument, as it stands now, is considerably flawed due to its severe reliance on several unwarranted assumptions. If the author of the letter is able to provide valid evidence – perhaps in the form of a systematic research study – then it will be possible to fully evaluate the viability of the argument provided that, replenishing the sand will help preserve the buildings in that area further improving tourism in Tria Island.