argument131

amanda2005UID: 2120493

131The 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."

The arguer attributes declining of fish populations are to the result of overfishing. Because Omni Island bans fishing within 10 miles of Omni while Tria Island does not. Meanwhile, the arguer denies the cause of pollution and makes a conclusion to imitate the regulations of Omni and abandon their own. However, the argument lacks credibility for the evidence can not lend strong support to what the arguer maintains.

First of all, the argument is based on a false analogy. The arguer simply assumes that the two Islands have similar natural environment so that they are suitable for the same regulations. But he does not provide any evidence that this is the case. As we know, different locations may have different climates, then different climates lead to different species of wildlife living there. It is entirely possible that climate change lead to the temperature’s fluctuation in the water. Many fishes can not be fit to the water any longer and leave Tria Island. Therefore, the decrease of fish populations may have nothing to do with fishing.

In addition, the argument is weaken by the vague data. The original amounts of fish in the water of two islands are not provided. From the argument, dumping and offshore oil drilling is merely banned within 10 miles of Omni. It is highly possible that the fish population in the water of Omni is so small that only fish with strong life can exist in it. Thus, the reason that Omni reports no significant decline in its fish population might be that there are no enough fish for fishing. Therefore the restriction set up to protect Omni Island is meaningless, not to mention that others can learn from it.

Last but not least, the arguer is so hasty to exclude the cause of pollution. Just understanding the difference between two islands’ regulations, the arguer do not test the conditions of water or check the organs of some fish samples. Unless a further investigation is implemented, we can not make a conclusion that fish decline is none of the business with pollution.

In sum, the arguer is necessary to provide more information about the similarity of two islands’ status including their location, climate, species in the water and so on. Meanwhile, exact number of fishes living in the water of both islands originally and strong proof that pollution do not occur in the water of Tria Island are needed also. Otherwise, the reduplication of other’s restriction will not help to protect the environment and species on the Tria Island.

childrenqUID: 2109575

The arguer attributes the declining of fish populations are去掉 to the result of overfishing.这句话attribute to和the result of重复了,随便去掉一个 Because Omni Island bans fishing within 10 miles of Omni改成it while Tria Island does not. Meanwhile, the arguer denies the cause of pollution and makes a conclusion to imitate the regulations of Omni and abandon their owns. However, the argument lacks credibility for the evidence can not lend strong support to what the arguer maintains. 这句改成这样the argument is lack of credible evidence and can not strongly support the arguer’s assertion

First of all, the argument is based on a false analogy.这种话最好不要说,因为这是空话,作为ts应该让reader知道你这段要说什么,改成the argument make a false analogy between Tari and Omni The arguer simply assumes that the two Islands have similar natural environment so that they are suitable for the same regulations. But he does not provide any evidence that this is the case 改成to support the assumption. As we know, different locations may have different climates, thenand different climates lead to different species of wildlife living there. It is entirely possible that climate‘s change leads to the temperature’s fluctuation in the water. Many fishes can not be fit to 改成 adapt the water any longer and leave the water area around Tria Island. Therefore, the decrease of fish’s populations may have nothing to do with fishing.

In addition, the argument is weakened by the vague data. 根本就没有关于鱼的data The original amounts of fish in the water of two islands are not provided. From the argument, dumping and offshore oil drilling is merely banned within 10 miles of Omni. It is highly possible that the fish population in the water of Omni is so small that only fish with strong life can exist in it 有因果关系吗?. Thus, the reason that Omni reports no significant decline in its fish population might be that there are not enough fish for fishing. Therefore the restriction set up to protect Omni Island’s fish is meaningless, not to mention that others can learn from it.

Last but not least, the arguer is so应该是too hasty to exclude the possiblecause of pollution. Just understanding the difference between two islands’ regulations, the arguer does not test the conditions of water or check the organs of some fish samples. Unless a further investigation is implemented, we can not make a conclusion that fish’s decline is none of the business 感觉这个说法不大对劲　with pollution.

In sum, the arguer is necessary to provide more information about the similarity of two islands’ status including their location, climate, species in the water and so on. Meanwhile, exact number of fishes living in the water of both islands originally and strong proof that pollution do （did） not occur in the water of Tria Island are needed also反了. Otherwise, the reduplication of other’s restriction will not help to protect the environment and species on改成of, 鱼不可能on the Tria Island.

整体思路比较清晰,小地方再注意一下,改得不好请见谅

木紫000UID: 2125809

你的连接好像有问题哦，我放到需要互改的作文集锦里就打不开了呢

amanda2005UID: 2120493

adapt这个词改得很好。

我的第二段的意思没有表达清楚，谢谢修改

amanda2005UID: 2120493

In addition, the arguer just indicates many fish population are declining and fails to make clear that the exact amounts of fish in Tria’s water which has dechined and their percentage to the whole fish population. If it is just a small portion of fish that disappears, it may be a temporary phenomenon and not necessary to worry about it. Meanwhile, the statement that Omni reports no significant decline in its fish population might not be convincing that the environment of Omni’s water is preserved well. Dumping and offshore oil drilling are merely banned within 10 miles. It is highly possible that the fish population in the water of Omni remains small due to pollution. Thus, Therefore the restriction set up to protect Omni Island is meaningless, not to mention that others can learn from it.

这是我改了的第二个批驳点，帮我再看看！

childrenqUID: 2109575

In addition, the arguer just indicates many fish population are declining and fails to make clear that the exact amounts of fish in Tria’s water which has declined and their percentage to the whole fish population. If it is just a small portion of fish that disappears, it may be a temporary phenomenon and not necessary to worry about it. Meanwhile, the statement that Omni reports no significant decline in its fish population might not be convincing  that the environment of Omni’s water is preserved well Dumping and offshore oil drilling are merely banned within 10 miles. It is highly possible that the fish population in the water of Omni remains small due to pollution. Thus, Therefore多了一个 the restriction set up to protect Omni Island is 不能肯定地说is,只能说may be meaningless, not to mention that others can learn from it.
.题目说no decline是想说明no fishing within 10 miles所以no decline, 而不是想证明water is well preserved所以no decline,所以你后面这一点反驳错了

purple-1984UID: 2132524

The arguer attributes declining of fish populations are to the result of overfishing. Because Omni Island bans fishing within 10 miles of Omni while Tria Island does not. Meanwhile, the arguer denies the cause of pollution（什么意思？） and makes a conclusion to imitate the regulations of Omni and abandon their own. However, the argument lacks credibility for the evidence can not lend strong support to what the arguer maintains.（这句话不太通顺吧）

First of all, the argument is based on a false analogy. The arguer simply assumes that the two Islands have similar natural environment so that they are suitable for the same regulations. But he does not provide any evidence that this is the case. As we know, different locations may have different climates, then different climates lead to different species of wildlife living there. It is entirely possible that climate change lead to the temperature’s fluctuation in the water. Many fishes can not be fit to the water any longer and leave Tria Island. Therefore, the decrease of fish populations may have nothing to do with fishing.

In addition, the argument is weaken by the vague data. The original amounts of fish in the water of two islands are not provided. From the argument, dumping and offshore oil drilling is merely banned within 10 miles of Omni. It is highly possible that the fish population in the water of Omni is so small that only fish with strong life can exist in it. Thus, the reason that Omni reports no significant decline in its fish population might be that there are no enough fish for fishing. Therefore the restriction set up to protect Omni Island is meaningless, not to mention that others can learn from it.（这句话是不是不太合理阿，就算根据假设规定不适合O，也不代表其他人不能学阿，因为这个结论同样没有根据）

Last but not least, the arguer is so hasty to exclude the cause of pollution. Just understanding the difference between two islands’ regulations, the arguer do not test the conditions of water or check the organs （根据韦式词典解释A group that performs a specialized function,所以用在这里好像不太恰当）of some fish samples. Unless a further investigation is implemented, we can not make a conclusion that fish decline is none of the business with pollution.

In sum, the arguer is necessary to provide more information about the similarity of two islands’ status（主要指身份地位 用conditions呢？） including their location, climate, species in the water and so on. Meanwhile, exact number of fishes living in the water of both islands originally and strong proof that pollution do not occur in the water of Tria Island are needed also（also needed）. Otherwise, the reduplication of other’s restriction will not help to protect the environment and species on the Tria Island.

该的未必对，仅作参考
９。１２　哈尔滨

[ Last edited by purple-1984 on 2005-8-29 at 21:01 ]