标题: Argument131【MathSCU 10G】第15次作业 大家给点意见吧 by qawsed [打印本页] 作者: qawsed 时间: 2007-7-27 00:53:31 标题: Argument131【MathSCU 10G】第15次作业 大家给点意见吧 by qawsed
TOPIC: ARGUMENT131 - 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."
WORDS: 365-- TIME: 00:30:00 DATE: 2007-7-26 20:30:32
In this argument, the author claims that to restore Tria's fish population and to protect all of Tria's marine wildlife, the best way is to abandon our regulations and adopt those of Omni. To bolster the conclusion, the author cites differences in bans between Tria Island and Omini. At first glance, it seems logical and reasonable, but after careful consideration, the whole argument suffers from flaws and deficienieces.
To begin with, the author fails to establish casual relationship between Tria Island and Omni Island. Although no significant decline in the Omni Island, it can not only be responsed to the ban of fishing within 10 miles of Omni. It is highly possible that the living situation for fishes of Omni is better than that of Tria. The Omni Island locates besides the middle line of earth, and the change of temperature is not that serious than Tria, which provides a comfortable living atmosphere for various kinds of fishes.Another possibility worth discussing is that no evidence shows there were many fishers in Tria Island and no ban for fishing does not follow that there will be many fishers fishing in this area. The author should provide more evidence to prove the differences between the two islands.
Furthermore, the author ignores the possibility that events of the offshore oil drilling and dumping happens less frequently than Tria, although the two island carried out the regulate ban law. Maybe because of paying more attention on the management of the dumping and offshore oil drilling, the Omni Island has brought more obvious effects of saving fishes than Tria as a result, then that is one important reason of the keeping fish population. Without accounting for these and other possible dissimilarities, the author can not assume that what resulted in Omni can be considered to be the same condition in Tria.
Next, the mere fact that hardly suffices to prove that the promise of fishing is the only reason for the declining of fish population in Tria. Fishing can not decrease the population so sharply. The author fails to implement other possibilities responsible to the declining. Perhaps the quality of air in Omni is not clearer than ever before. The poisonous molecules are moving rampantly and they get into the marine gradually, which is a crucial damages for the living of fished. Accordingly, the species in Tria might be less adopt than that of Omni. Therefore, they failed to accommodate self immune system to conquer the infraction of virus. That is an important explanation for the declining of the Tria.
In sum, the author can not justify his or her voting recommendation on the basis of scant evidence provided in the argument. To substantiate the recommendation, the author must provide more sufficient evidence for the alternative possibilities of the declining of fish in Tria. The author fails to analogy the differences between Tria and Omni which influence the population of fishes. Unless the author should provide more survey or report to invest it, he or she can not confidently convince me.