People in the tourist industry know that excessive development of seaside areas by the industry damages the environment.
Main Conclusion (thus)
There's nothing to fear from the tourist industry, when it comes to damage to the seaside environment.
Intermediate Conclusion (therefore)
People in the tourist industry would never knowingly damage the seaside environment.
Evidence
People in the tourist industry know that excessive development of the seaside areas would damage the environment, thereby hurting the tourist industry by making the areas unattractive to tourists.
Evaluate
Since we have an intermediate and a main conclusion, we can think about each of those two moves.
The move to the intermediate conclusion uses these two ideas: - Tourism people would never knowingly do anything to damage the tourism industry. - Tourism people know that excessive development would ultimately damage the tourism industry.
The correct conclusion to draw would be: - Tourism people would never knowingly do excessive development.
The actual intermediate conclusion:
- Tourism people would never knowingly damage the seaside environment.
Those aren't the same. The premises allow us to believe that tourism people might knowingly damage the seaside environment, as long as that damage wouldn't damage the tourism industry.
We were only told that excessive development would make seaside less attractive to tourists, which would hurt the industry. There might be other damage to the seaside environment that doesn't make it less attractive to tourists, and thus doesn't hurt the industry.
The final move from Intermediate to Main conclusion is saying,
This is sort of a Part vs. Whole flaw. Maybe the people in the tourism industry wouldn't damage the seaside, but the tourism industry could still damage the seaside because the tourists themselves damage the environment?
Goal
Look for an answer objecting, , or one objecting,