Argument131 【四人行小组】第8次作业 by Jeking [复制链接]

JgHuang
UID: 2569221

寄托新兵

Rank: 2

声望: 0
寄托币: 265
注册时间: 2008-11-7
精华: 0
帖子: 0

电梯直达

楼主

发表于 2009-7-26 15:28:17 |只看该作者 |倒序浏览

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: 509

TIME: 00:45:00

DATE: 2009-7-26 14:06:41

Hastily generalizing that the decline of many fish populations is out of normal fluctuation, unfairly assuming that the decline is due to overfishing but pollution, falsely applying the regulations of Omni to Tria Island, this argument has a piles of flaws which render it unconvincing.

First and foremost, the author unfairly assumes that the decline of fish populations is serious and out of normal fluctuation which need to handle. However, there is no guarantee that this is the case, nor does the author cite any evidence to support this assumption. It is entirely possible that the decline of fish population is not serious but a normal fluctuation. What is more, the fish in Tria Island maybe overpopulated, thus this decline of fish population is good for fishery. Without ruling out above possibility, the author can't convince me that the decline of fish population need any attention.

Additionally, even if the foregoing assumption is true as the author claims, the author can't assumes that the decline of fish populations is due to overfishing but pollution. Just as likely, although its regulations ban dumping and offshore oil drilling within 20 miles, there are many other pollution sources, like the discharge of liquid waste, as from a factory or nuclear plant, that can also account for this decline of fish population, or 20 miles is not far enough to protect certain marine mammals. Moreover, there is no evidence to substantiate that the fish are overfished. Thus, without ruling out the possibility of pollution and providing the evidence of overfishing, the author can't persuade me that the decline of fish populations is result of overfishing.

Moreover, It is highly doubtful that the regulations of Omni are applicable to Tria Island, even assumes that the regulations of Omni is the best way. There is a highly likelihood that the fish population in Omni is smaller than the fish population in Tria Island, even the fish population in Tria Island has declined while Omni reports no significant decline in its fish population. In all probability, there is a serious decline in its fish populations in Omni, although Omni reports no significant.

The last but not the least, the author assumes that abandoning our regulation and adopting those of Omni is the best way to restore Tria’s fish populations and to protect all of Tria’s marine wildlife. This assumption is never supported with any data or projection. Moreover, this assumption fails to take into account cost increase and inefficiency of protecting certain marine mammals. For instance, the fish can compete with certain marine mammals for food which the marine sanctuary on Tria Island was established to protect. As a result, this assumption must be supported with a thorough cost-benefits analysis.

To sum up, this argument
is not compelling as it stands. To bolster this argument, the author must prove that the decline is serious and this decline is due to overfishing but pollution. To evaluate this argument, I need the guarantee that the regulation of Omni can apply to Tria Island and a thorough cost-benefits analysis.

0 0

使用道具举报

goldentu
UID: 2592660

初级会员

Rank: 3 Rank: 3

声望: 0
寄托币: 336
注册时间: 2009-1-18
精华: 0
帖子: 0

沙发

发表于 2009-7-26 17:38:53 |只看该作者

Hastily generalizing that the decline of many fish populations is out of normal fluctuation, unfairly assuming that the decline is due to overfishing but pollution, falsely applying the regulations of Omni to Tria Island, this argument has a piles of flaws which render it unconvincing.
开头真有气魄,很好
First and foremost, the author unfairly assumes that the decline of fish populations is serious and out of normal fluctuation which need to handle. However, there is no guarantee that this is the case, (nor does the author) and the author doesn’t cite any evidence to support this assumption. It is entirely possible that the decline of fish population is not serious but a normal fluctuation. What is more, the fish in Tria Island maybe overpopulated, thus this decline of fish population is good for fishery. Without ruling out above possibility, the author can't convince me that the decline of fish population needs any attention.
fluctuation这个观点很新颖,恩,好
Additionally, even if the foregoing assumption is true as the author claims, the author can't assumes that the decline of fish populations is due to overfishing but pollution. Just as likely, although its regulations ban dumping and offshore oil drilling within 20 miles, there are many other pollution sources, like the discharge of liquid waste, as from a factory or nuclear plant, (that) which逗号后面的应该属于非限制性定语从句,都应该用which引导的 can also account for this decline of fish population, or 20 miles is not far enough to protect certain marine mammals. Moreover, there is no evidence to substantiate that the fish are overfished. Thus, without ruling out the possibility of pollution and providing the evidence of overfishing, the author can't persuade me that the decline of fish populations is result of overfishing.
恩,反驳很到位
Moreover, It is highly doubtful that the regulations of Omni are applicable to Tria Island, even assumes that the regulations of Omni is the best way. There is a highly likelihood that the fish population in Omni is smaller than the fish population in Tria Island, even the fish population in Tria Island has declined while Omni reports no significant decline in its fish population. In all probability, there is a serious decline in its fish populations in Omni, although Omni reports no significant.

The last but not the least, the author assumes that abandoning our regulation and adopting those of Omni is the best way to restore Tria’s fish populations and to protect all of Tria’s marine wildlife. This assumption is never supported with any data or projection. Moreover, this assumption fails to take into account cost increase and inefficiency of protecting certain marine mammals. For instance, the fish can compete with certain marine mammals for food which the marine sanctuary on Tria Island was established to protect. As a result, this assumption must be supported with a thorough cost-benefits analysis.

To sum up, this argument is not compelling as it stands. To bolster this argument, the author must prove that the decline is serious and this decline is due to overfishing but not pollution. To evaluate this argument, I need the guarantee that the regulation of Omni can apply to Tria Island and a thorough cost-benefits analysis.
这篇arg很不错~~很有说服力,尤其第一个观点很新颖

使用道具举报