[a习作temp] ARGUMENT131 倒数的A了，侠义仁心者，请进，请帮忙。谢谢 [复制链接]

annaswee
UID??2294850

初级会员

Rank: 3 Rank: 3

声望: 0
寄托币: 676
注册时间: 2007-1-22
精华: 0
帖子: 8

电梯直达

楼主

发表于 2007-4-15 18:05:55 |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: 504 TIME: 0:27:19 DATE: 2007-4-15

According to the argument, the author concludes that best way to restore Tria's(t) fish populations meanwhile protect all the t wildlife is to adopt those of Omni(o) while quit ours. To bolster his conclusion, the author also cites us a few plausible evidences at first glance. However, further analysis reflects that there several logic flaws in the argument.

To begin with, no evidence shows that the declining fish population in t waters is due to the overfishing. The author fails to provide that the number of fishers. Similarly, he does not demonstrate that the number of fish is declining while the number of fish be captured is rising. Also, the author does not consider the other elements related to the number of fish decline. Maybe due to the change climate, or their rivals' overfishing, such decline can be also occurred. Unless the author eliminates the other possibilities of the decrease while provides that the certain evidence of overfishing, such a conclusion is too hasty.

Second, the author says that the number of fish decline is not the result of the pollution. However, browsing the whole article, no certain evidence can support such assumption. The author only shows that the T has put regulations ban dumping and offshore oil drilling within 20 miles. Nevertheless, the dumping may be still continuing due to nowhere for the residents to dump these trash. Also, the effectiveness of banning offshore oil drilling within 20 miles does not put in the article. Maybe it is ineffect that the ban within 20 miles due to that the oil maybe easily push to the place where fish is most active by sea wave. Before the author prove the effectiveness of the legislation in T, such a assumption is unconvincing.

Finally, that we should adopt the way of o is not reliable. On one hand, that whether the legislation in o is effective is left to be proved. The author only tells that the no report of the fish decline in o, which does not stand that fish in o is really not declining in o. Maybe the certain department conceals the truth that fishes are declining sharply in o. On the other hand, the reference of o is effect in t. Are the circumstance in t is the same as in o? It is certainly not. Also, are the kinds of fishes the same in t as those in o? The answer is no. Varies kinds of fishes may have the different resistance to the pollution and fishing. Also, no evidence shows that fishing within 10 miles of t can be feasible. Maybe fish is active in o within 10 miles while those fishes in t are less. All these possibilities show that such a copy of o may have no use on t.

All in all, the author's suggestion is not feasible. The author should do more research about the circumstance in each place and collect more detailed information about the fish declining in t before making such a hasty decision.

you must pay for everything you gain