Argument131 【CSMY作文互改第四小组】自己的练习----感觉组织得不好 有拍必回！

ctexUID: 2241178

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: 301          TIME: 上午 12:35:00          DATE: 2007-1-22
Second edition: 460 words

The argument is well-presented, but not thoroughly well-reasoned. By making a comparison of Tria Island, which bans dumping and offshore oil drilling within 20 miles of it but permit fishing, and whose fish population is dwindling, with Omni island, which bans fishing except for the other measurement taken by Tria Island, and whose fish population does not decline, however, the arguer's recommendation that Tria should adopts the same measurements as Omni do is unpersuasive for some reasons as follows.

To begin with, the arguer fails to consider other possible alternatives for the decreased population of fish. Such alternatives may include the fact that its climate has change dramatically so that the temperature of water is unsuitable for many kinds of fish which have been habited there for many years to reside in. Therefore, those kinds of fish might not adapt the environmental change and eventually diminished; or they have migrated out to other places. Either scenario could result in the decreased population of fish.

Secondly, although Tria bans dumping and offshore oil drilling within 20 miles of it, whether there is still pollution that can cause the decreased population of fish is open to question. Perhaps there are many oil-drilling outside the marine sanctuary which can bring about pollution within the protecting zone and cause the decrease. Moreover, it is possible that  recently there was an oil tank that had sunk in the sanctuary zone and leaked great amounts of crude-oil, which could brought about serious pollution and gave rise to a great deal of fish’s ceasing to exist. So the arguer's reason that rules out the possibility of pollution is unpersuasive.

Thirdly, the arguer contrasts the regulations of Omni Island with its own, and then concludes hastily that over-fishing is the real cause of decreased population of fish. However, he fails to provide any information about the fishing in its own marine sanctuary------- such as the number of fish men and fishing ships. In addition, the arguer fails to provide the disparities between the two islands. It is entirely possible that the phenomena that the amount of fish in Omni fishing-banned is kept the same level owns to the suitable environment, which is ensured by the implementation of its regulations. Without ruling out the causes mentioned above, the decreased population of fish in Tria should not be attributed to over-fishing.

In sum, the arguer's conclusion that the best way of restore Tria's fish population is untenable let alone the protection of Tria's marine wildlife. To attain the goal, far more scientific investigations should be exerted to find out the real cause for the dwindling population of fish. Meanwhile, to better protect the marine sanctuary, Tria Island should strictly observe the environment of its near sea and taking corresponding measurements.

最後の使徒UID: 2257608

The argument is well-presented, but not thoroughly well-reasoned. By making a comparison of (between) Tria Island, which bans dumping and offshore oil drilling within 20 miles of it but permit(s) fishing, and whose fish population is dwindling, with Omni island, which bans fishing except for the other measurement taken by Tria Island, and whose fish population does not decline,(句意结束, 应该断句. 另外你这句however之前没有主句啊, by making a comparison between...and ...然后呢?the argue claims that...应该有这么一句的吧) however, the arguer's recommendation that Tria should adopts the same measurements as Omni do is unpersuasive for some reasons as follows.

To begin with, the arguer fails to consider other possible alternatives for the decreased population of fish.(where? then what? 作者没有考虑这些原因如何破坏了他的论证? 他考虑的原因是什么, 这个原因是怎么支持他的观点的? 对分论点需要进一步分析然后举出它因) Such alternatives may include the fact that its climate has change(d) (so) dramatically so that (that) the temperature of water is unsuitable for many kinds of fish which have been habited there for many years to reside in.(它因最好先抽象后具体, 先广泛后细节, 不然你提出这么具体的情况也显得没有依据) Therefore, those kinds of fish might not adapt the environmental change and eventually diminished; or they have migrated out to other places. Either scenario could result in the decreased population of fish(which makes no matter how Tria changes its regulation, no improvement will be gained). (作者是通过比较T和O的政策不同得出了鱼下降的事实, 因此这个比较是作者鱼类因为滥补而下降的论据, 在这里你孤立地列举它因而没有考虑作者的论据是不太合适的, 因为这样做只提出了作者错误的可能, 而没有阐明作者错误的必然, 别人可以认为即使其它原因有作用滥捕鱼也是原因之一, 所以还是应该改变政策. 而如果你先说明了作者论据的不足, 然后再提出其它可能性来替代作者结论中的原因, 那么逻辑关系就会严密很多)

Secondly, although Tria bans dumping and offshore oil drilling within 20 miles of it, whether there is still pollution that can cause the decreased population of fish is open to question.(这个不也是鱼类下降的它因么? 逻辑层次上跟上一段是一样的) (不要提出论点以后就直接列举它因, 因为你的论点并没有直接说明作者的错误在哪里, 作者的主论点如何因为你这段的论证而站不住脚, 别人看下面的论证也无法清晰地了解到你这段在攻击什么) Perhaps there are many oil-drilling outside the marine sanctuary which can bring about pollution within the protecting zone and cause the decrease. Moreover, it is possible that  recently there was an oil tank that had sunk in the sanctuary zone and leaked great amounts of crude-oil, which could brought about serious pollution and gave rise to a great deal of fish’s ceasing to exist.(它因不要一上来就很具体, 记得上次我就说过了...这些事情虽然都有可能发生但也都有可能不发生) So the arguer's reason that rules out the possibility of pollution is unpersuasive.

Thirdly, the arguer contrasts the regulations of Omni Island with its own (指代不明, 直接写Tria's), and then concludes hastily that over-fishing is the real cause of decreased population of fish.(其实三点都是在说作者得出鱼类下降是因为过分捕鱼的证据不足, 在我看来完全可以合成一段) However, he fails to provide any information about the fishing in its own marine sanctuary------- such as the number of fish men and fishing ships.(然后呢? 没有提供这个信息的后果是什么?) In addition, the arguer fails to provide the disparities between the two islands.(同样缺乏进一步论证) It is entirely possible that the phenomena that the amount of fish in Omni fishing-banned is kept the same level owns to the suitable environment, which is ensured by the implementation of its regulations.(其实第一, 二段的内容全都可以放到这来) Without ruling out the causes mentioned above, the decreased population of fish in Tria should not be attributed to over-fishing.(写这句总结的时候你没感觉到你三段在攻击的都是同一个问题么?)

In sum, the arguer's conclusion that the best way of restore Tria's fish population is untenable let alone the protection of Tria's marine wildlife. To attain the goal, far more scientific investigations should be exerted to find out the real cause for the dwindling population of fish. Meanwhile, to better protect the marine sanctuary, Tria Island should strictly observe the environment of its near sea and taking corresponding measurements.

主要问题出在破题上. 论证手法有所进步, 不过还是有待改进, 主要还是抽象的分析太少使得举的它因很唐突很被孤立.
分析下这道题的层次:
作者结论: 应该废除T现有的制度, 改而转投O那样的
论据: O没有限制捕鱼, 但鱼没有减少, 而T限制了, 鱼却减少了. O限制10英里的污染而T限制20英里的
推断: T的鱼量下降是由于过量捕鱼, 而不是污染.

攻击论据: 二者没有可比性, 可能O的鱼本来就比较茁壮.
攻击推断: 即使二者有可比性, 也不能排除污染的原因, O也可能受污染影响, 包括10英里内的影响和10英里外的影响, 可能它们限制20英里以后鱼的数量更多
攻击结论: 即使鱼量下降是因为过量捕鱼, O的法规在T也不一定适合, 可能T的渔民就靠这个为生, 要按O的制度T那渔民就要遭殃了.

提出这个思路是想提醒楼主在分析题目的时候尽量分出层次来, 避免反复就着一个东西在说, 结果导致很多论点和论证重复. 当然分析的手法可以不一样, 但应该能保证文章段落的层次. 这个建议多练习提纲写作, 熟悉ARGUMENT的破题点, 多参考下同主题系列的分析.

ctexUID: 2241178

为了preclude 【B】 arguer 引用O所采取的措施【D】于T所采取的措施做对比来作为【A】---->>【C】的证据，而其对比过程只注意了whether fishing is banned or not这一点，conclude hastily that over-fishing results in the dwindling amount of fish in Tria.从而T要和O做一样一样的事。
整个过程即：
B----》C 【参考D】，导致A----》C
攻击点1：T bans　fishing 是在10miles内的 鱼量保持一定，那么鱼量保持一定的就是因为ban fishing了吗？之间没有似乎有那么点联系。但是既然说是overfishing 就需要提供具体fishing 的一些data.反驳T本来就没什么fishmen，即使有他们也是自己捕少量的鱼自己吃，即捕鱼量很少。反驳A不会导致C。
攻击点2: 其原因仍然有可能是pollution B----C.
攻击点3：采取与O同样的措施，将导致本来在10miles内捕鱼的fishmen没法活或是增加成本去10miles外捕鱼，引起protest.另外一方面可能增加10-20miles zone's dumping and oil-drilling 的可能性，从而会exacerbate 小鱼的生存环境。
（感觉3放在和1一起写没找到比较好的办法，单独拿出来写是否好些？）

重新写的----继续求拍
===============================================================
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: 390          TIME: 上午 12:30:00          DATE: 2007-1-23
Second edition: 625 words 【打字太慢了，有什么好的办法呢？】

Giving some facts and analysis, the arguer alleges that the over-fishing course of action resulted in the dwindling population of fish in Tria, and recommends that Tria should take corresponding measurements to restore its fish populations and protect its marine sanctuary. Although it seems logical, close scrutiny of the argument reveals that there are several hidden flaws as follows.

To begin with, the arguer compares the regulations of Omni Island to Tria's. Because Omni's fish populations in Omni keep the same level with the regulation of banning fishing, while Tria did not take such fish-banning regulation and its fish populations are decreasing, the arguer concludes hastily that the decline in fish populations in Tria's waters is attributed to the over-fishing. However, he fails to provide clear evidence that over-fishing indeed took place in Tria's waters. For instance, the arguer may supply some information about the fishing in Tria---such as the number of fish men and fishing ships. In fact, it is quite possible that there are few fish men and fishing-ships that engaged in fishing in the Tria's forbidden waters. If this is the case, it is too hasty for the author to conclude recklessly that over fishing results in the decreasing population in Tria's waters fish.

Secondly,the arguer fails to consider other possible alternatives to the decreasing fish population in Tria's waters even if Tria does not ban fishing. Such alternatives may include that there is still pollution and the change of waters. It is possible that the regulations of Tria are not enforced so strictly that there is still dumping in the marine sanctuary. In addition, Perhaps recently there have been a oil tank which sunk in Tria's marine sanctuary and leaked great amounts of crude-oil, which brought about serious environmental pollution that caused great deal of fish's ceasing to exist. Again, perhaps the climate of Tria is experiencing enormous change that the temperature of the water is unsuitable for many kinds of fish which have been habited there for many years to reside in. So, these kinds of fish might be unable to adapt themselves to the change and diminished, or they migrate out Tria's waters to other places. All the scenarios mentioned above can give rise to the dwindling population in fish in Tria's waters. Without ruling out these possibilities, the arguer's assertion is untenable.

Thirdly, even the Tria replaces its original regulations with the Omni's ones, there is possibility that Tria can not attain its goal for the reason of neglecting the discrepancy between Tria and Omni. There is possible that most of Omni fish are confined within 10 miles waters, while most of Tria's fish distribute the waters of 10 miles to 20 miles. Then after the shift Tria’s marine sanctuary will shrink to 10 miles near to its land, then Tria's fish population will continue decreasing in that there is possibility that dumping and oil-drilling outside 10 miles will increase and exacerbate the environment in which fish lives., So let alone the protection of Mammals. Moreover, the fish men in Tria who will have to go far away for fishing or have abandon fishing, which may make them out of business. And then this shift may give rise to protest from the fish men. Therefore, the arguer should take into consideration of the scenarios mentioned above.

Overall, the reasoning behind replacing Tria's original regulations with Omni's ones seems logical as presented in the argument since Tria are acting for the purpose of restoring its fish population and protecting the marine wildlife. However, before any final decisions are made about the regulations of marine sanctuary, Tria should evaluate all possible alternatives and causes for the dwindling population in fish and the discern the discrepancy between Tria and Omni.

最後の使徒UID: 2257608

改过以后感觉好多了, 不过要尽量避免
To begin with, the arguer compares the regulations of Omni Island to Tria's. 这种没什么信息量的主题句
the arguer compares Omni Island with Tria to draw a conclusion too hastily就会好些
打字速度下个练字软件练上几天就能有所提高的, 我记得我以前打字速度是初中电脑课在286上一周练一次练了半个学期就上去了, 也就10次左右吧每次20分钟, 记得指法一定要对