Argument131: 387 words 30 minutes
The following appeared in an environmental newsletter published in Tria Island.
'The marine sanctuary on Tria Island was established to protect certain marine mammals. Its regulations ban dumping and offshore oil drilling within 20 miles of Tria, but fishing is not banned. Currently many fish populations in Tria's waters are declining, a situation blamed on pollution. In contrast, the marine sanctuary on Omni Island has regulations that ban dumping, offshore oil drilling, and fishing within 10 miles of Omni and Omni reports no significant decline in its fish populations. Clearly, the decline in fish populations in Tria's waters is the result of overfishing, not pollution. Therefore, the best way to restore Tria's fish populations and to protect all of Tria's marine wildlife is to abandon our regulations and adopt those of Omni.'
------------------------------------------------------------------
In this argument, the speaker concludes that the diminishing of fish population at Tria Island is attributed to overfishing instead of pollution, and finally suggests that Tria Island should adopt Omni Island's regulations to protect all it marine wildlife. After a careful scrutiny, I find the reasoning suffers from several critical flaws which I will address in turn.
To begin with, the speaker does not give any substantial scientific evidences to prove the causal relationship between declination of fish population and overfishing at Tria. In the first place, there is no statistics about the number of fishermen, boats, their daily spend of time on fishing, and the amount of fish they caught. Without the information, it is too hasty to conclude that the decrease of fish population at Tria is caused by overfishing. In the second place, the declination of fish population might result from other reasons. For instance, it is quite possible that major part of fishes live around Tria Island regularly move to other places at certain time of a year which is based on their habits. If so, fishes might come back later.
Moreover, the possibility that the declination of fish population results from pollution cannot be ruled out. On the one hand, the speaker does not provide any scientific study of current seawater around Tria. On the other hand, although the Tria Island have enacted regulation to ban dumping and offshore oil drilling, as daily experience telling us, not all members obey these regulations. Dumping and oil drilling might still happen after the implementation of Tria's regulation. As a result, the environment in which marine wildlife live is polluted.
In addition, the speaker commits a false analogy when suggests that Tria should adopt Omni's regulation. The speaker fails to take into account the differences between Tria and Omni. For instance, at Omni, most fishes live within 10 miles off bank, while it is not the case at Tria. In this condition, if Tria still want to adopt Omni's regulations, its marine wildlife would not likely be protected.
In conclusion, the argument is unpersuasive due to the flaws listed above. In order to strengthen its reasoning, the speaker should provide substantial scientific evidence to inform the truth behind the declination of fish population at Tria, and whether it is practical to adopt Omni’s regulation.作者: tangjihede 时间: 2005-8-24 19:39:41
Argument131: 387 words 30 minutes
The following appeared in an environmental newsletter published in Tria Island.
'The marine sanctuary on Tria Island was established to protect certain marine 【mammals】. Its regulations ban dumping and offshore oil drilling within 20 miles of Tria, but fishing is not banned. Currently many【 fish】 populations in Tria's waters are declining, a situation blamed on【 pollution】. In contrast, the marine sanctuary on【 Omni Island 】has regulations that ban dumping, offshore oil drilling, and fishing within 【10】 miles of Omni and Omn【i reports no significant decline in its fish】 populations. Clearly, the decline in fish populations in Tria's waters is the 【result of overfishing, not pollution】. Therefore, the best way to restore Tria's fish populations and to protect all of Tria's marine wildlife is to 【abandon our regulations and adopt those of Omni.】
------------------------------------------------------------------
In this argument, the speaker concludes that the diminishing of fish population at Tria Island is attributed to overfishing instead of pollution, and finally suggests that Tria Island should adopt Omni Island's regulations to protect all it[its] marine wildlife. After a careful scrutiny, I find the reasoning suffers from several critical flaws which I will address in turn.
To begin with, the speaker does not give any substantial scientific evidences to prove the causal relationship between declination of fish population and overfishing at Tria. In the first place, there is no statistics about the number of fishermen, boats, their daily spend of time on fishing, and the amount of fish they caught.[Maybe there are few fishermen…] Without the information, it is too hasty to conclude that the decrease of fish population at Tria is caused by overfishing. In the second place[实战用first second就行了，表达的意思一样，省时间。], the declination of fish population might result from other reasons. For instance, it is quite possible that major part of fishes live [ing]around Tria Island regularly move to other places at certain time of a year which is based on their habits. If so, fishes might come back later. [结论不应该说是他们会回来，而是数量没有减少。]
Moreover, the possibility that the declination of fish population results from pollution cannot be ruled out. [这条和鱼的季节习性是并列的。把上一条放进一段，这条另一段结构不平衡。可以把上一段拆开，或合并，都说causal relationship的事儿。] On the one hand, the speaker does not provide any scientific study of current seawater around Tria. On the other hand, although the Tria Island have enacted regulation to ban dumping and offshore oil drilling, as daily experience telling us, not all members obey these regulations. Dumping and oil drilling might still happen after the implementation of Tria's regulation. As a result, the environment in which marine wildlife live is polluted. [可以说有污染漂过来了，比如有油船沉了。后面说执法不利可以单列一条，说其实现在的措施足够了，只是执行尔。]
In addition, the speaker commits a false analogy when suggests that Tria should adopt Omni's regulation. The speaker fails to take into account the differences between Tria and Omni. For instance, at Omni, most fishes live within 10 miles off bank, while it is not the case at Tria. In this condition, if Tria still want to adopt Omni's regulations, its marine wildlife would not likely be protected.
In conclusion, the argument is unpersuasive due to the flaws listed above. In order to strengthen its reasoning, the speaker should provide substantial scientific evidence to inform the truth behind the declination of fish population at Tria, and whether it is practical to adopt Omni’s regulation. [我的提纲供参考：
1. 没证明鱼少了。人家旅游串门去了。
2. 就算少了也不是钓鱼钓的。就是污染的。
3. 就算是渔民干的，立法的原意是保护mamal又不是鱼。
4. 就算也要保护鱼，是不是执法不利的问题。
5. 就算法规本身不足也不能随便照搬邻居的。20里不比10里强？]