[a习作temp] Argument131 【G流勇进作业帖】羽 [复制链接]

peger
UID：2236982

寄托新兵

Rank: 2

声望: 0
寄托币: 148
注册时间: 2006-8-1
精华: 0
帖子: 0

电梯直达

楼主

发表于 2007-3-21 14:27:05 |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: 388 TIME: 0:30:00 DATE: 2007-3-21
终于现实成功！

The arguer shows his or her kind-heart in the pursue of banning fishing in Tria Island. Unfortunately, the evidences he or she collected to support the conclusion are neither irrelevant nor pointless.

First, there is not any material in this argument can prove that overfishing is the chief reason in the decline of fish population, or that overfishing has ever exsited. Perhaps the very reason why Tria Island's regulation does not forbid fishing is that the habitants merely fish. Thus, banning fishing would not solve any problem actually. Even I concede that overfishing does harm the living of fish, there are other equative elements would lead to the same phenomenon as well. For instance, the global warming climate would make the animal, including fish obviously, escape from their original habitat. In this hypothesis, the appropriate approach to this issue is not emending a local regulation but persuading the international cooperation.

Second, even if the banning of overfishing is beneficial to the Tria Island's ecosystem, adopting the Omin's regulation, which is advocated by the arguer, is inrational and sightless. To read the details of the Omni's regulation, one can find that while overfishing is forbidden, dumping or oil drilling is not so strictly conserved as Tria Island's. It is possible that manufactures and residents in Tria Island are far more than those in Omni. Hence, unless the Tria Island's governer keep strainning the dumping of waste water, a even greater disaster may come to the creature in the marine sancturary. Needless to say the other diffences in geography that the arguer neglect to tell us in the argument, adopting the same regulation in two different terrain would cause endless tragedy.

Finally, the arguer seems to forget the very purpose to set the marine sancturary, which is to protect the certain marine mammals. So far as I know, some marine mammals is live on small fish, thus the mammals we tend to protect is the real murders to those decreasing fish. In this premise, since we are set in those inoptional dillema, the proper action we should take to save the dying spices of marine wildlife, is to move a part of the mammals to another sancturary.

In sum, the aruger is rush to accused the overfishing for decline, but not ever noticed other possible relevant reasons. In my opinion, since the decline is still covered, we should know more details.

[ 本帖最后由 peger 于 2007-3-21 14:31 编辑 ]