[a习作temp] Argument131 【写了一个小时，居然才批了两点】狠拍 [复制链接]

gyyx
UID：2290150

初级会员

Rank: 3 Rank: 3

声望: 0
寄托币: 528
注册时间: 2007-1-5
精华: 0
帖子: 4

电梯直达

楼主

发表于 2007-7-25 22:05:31 |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."

In this memo, the author attribute the population of fish declining in Tria, which is a marine sanctuary, to overfishing, not pollution, after compared with the marine sanctuary--Omni. As a result, the author recommends the measure that replacing our regulations with those of Omni. However, close scrutiny renders its fallacies, as discussing infra.

At the first place, the author make his conclusion that the reason for this declining is overfishing not pollution on the mere fact that Tria's fish declining, while Omni not, and Tria do not ban fishing, while Omni, do. I think this analysis undue in two aspects. First, the author refutes the reason of pollution, but did not provide any evidence to support this argument. Although Tria bans drilling in 20 miles, the oil and deleterious material could flow to Tria. Second, the author ignores other explanations for this declining other than overfishing. Maybe the food that the fish depend on declined, so the fish died of hunger. Or perhaps this season is the time of fish migration; many fishes go to other place to spend winter. Without ruling out these possible explanations, the author could not deduce his argument, as he did not provide any evidence related to overfishing.

Secondly, the author makes a false analysis of the relationship between Tria and Omni, only establishes his recommendation that we must use Omni’s regulations only due to their adjoining in geography. The differences between Tria and Omni may vary in climate, the species, the management, and so forth. It is highly possible that Tria’s fishes are frail, but Omni’s are strong. And maybe Tria is a new sanctuary, inclined to be influenced by the climate, while Omni established many years ago, not. And as for different protecting objective, Tria mainly in marine, Omni in all, the regulations of Omni may not suit for Tria, as fish is including to be protected. So, the author based his recommendation on ignoring these situations, which unadvisable.

Finally, this argument is unconvincing, due to lack of evidence and false analysis. To bolster it, the author should provide information on the pollution and the statistics of fishing. To better assess it, the author should compare the regulations of the two, with a scientific measure, in practical attitude.

回应
0

使用道具举报

huaxinluobo
UID：2326780

初级会员

Rank: 3 Rank: 3

声望: 0
寄托币: 877
注册时间: 2007-4-11
精华: 0
帖子: 0

沙发

发表于 2007-7-26 18:30:01 |只看该作者

In this memo, the author attribute the population of fish declining in Tria, which is a marine sanctuary, to overfishing, not pollution, after compared with the marine sanctuary--Omni. As a result, the author recommends the measure that replacing our regulations with those of Omni. However, close scrutiny renders its fallacies, as discussing infra.

At the first place, the author make his conclusion that the reason for this declining is overfishing not[rather than] pollution on the mere fact that Tria's fish declining, while Omni not, and Tria do not ban fishing, while Omni, do[意思能明白，但是这样表述恐怕不太好]. I think this analysis undue in two aspects. First, the author refutes the reason of pollution, but did not provide any evidence to support this argument. Although Tria bans drilling in 20 miles, the oil and deleterious material could flow to Tria. Second, the author ignores other explanations for this declining other than overfishing. Maybe the food that the fish depend on declined, so the fish died of hunger. Or perhaps this season is the time of fish migration; many fishes go to other place to spend winter. Without ruling out these possible explanations, the author could not deduce his argument, as he did not provide any evidence related to overfishing.[很重要的一点你没有攻击阿，就是T不一定是由捕鱼引起的，另外，pollution和其他原因可以写在一起的]

Secondly, the author makes a false analysis[analogy ] [of the relationship] between Tria and Omni, only establishes his recommendation that we must use Omni’s regulations only due to their adjoining in geography. The differences between Tria and Omni may vary in climate, the species, the management, and so forth. It is highly possible that Tria’s fishes are frail, but Omni’s are strong. And maybe Tria is a new sanctuary, inclined to be influenced by the climate, while Omni established many years ago, not. And as for different protecting objective, Tria mainly in marine, Omni in all, the regulations of Omni may not suit for Tria, as fish is including to be protected. So, the author based his recommendation on ignoring these situations, which unadvisable.[反例有点多了，说理有点少，我觉得让步比较好，即使采用了，也不一定有效]

Finally, this argument is unconvincing, due to lack of evidence and false analysis. To bolster it, the author should provide information on the pollution and the statistics of fishing. To better assess it, the author should compare the regulations of the two, with a scientific measure, in practical attitude.

其实这个完全可以写成三段的。第一段可以分成两段来写，或者另外写一段关于必要性的，比如鱼类减少不一定威胁哺乳动物，也就不一定有必要采取措施了。

最近很少看A ，很生疏，所以也提不出来什么建议了，不好意思啊。

使用道具举报

clyde630
UID：2211462

中级会员

Rank: 4

声望: 0
寄托币: 585
注册时间: 2006-5-4
精华: 0
帖子: 3

板凳

发表于 2007-7-26 22:10:06 |只看该作者

我明天早上帮你看，我今天太忙了，不好意思哈，先占个位子

使用道具举报

clyde630
UID：2211462

中级会员

Rank: 4

声望: 0
寄托币: 585
注册时间: 2006-5-4
精华: 0
帖子: 3

地板

发表于 2007-7-27 09:02:33 |只看该作者

In this memo（这个是个newsletter不是memo吧） , the author attributes the population of fish declining in Tria, which is a marine sanctuary, to overfishing, not pollution, after compared with the marine sanctuary--Omni. As a result, the author recommends the measure that replacing our(用their吧） regulations with those of Omni. However, close scrutiny renders its fallacies, as discussing infra.

At the first place, the author makes his conclusion that the reason for this declining is overfishing not pollution on the mere fact that Tria's fish declining, while Omni not, and Tria do not ban fishing, while Omni, do. I think this analysis undue in two aspects. First, the author refutes the reason of pollution, but did not provide any evidence to support this argument. Although Tria bans drilling in 20 miles, the oil and deleterious material could flow to Tria(这点貌似不是很好，因为Omni在10miles内禁止，那更有可能流过去）. Second, the author ignores other explanations for this declining other than overfishing. Maybe the food that the fish depend on declined, so the fish died of hunger. Or perhaps this season is the time of fish migration; many fishes go to other place to spend winter. Without ruling out these possible explanations, the author could not deduce his argument, as he did not provide any evidence related to overfishing.

Secondly, the author makes a false analysis of the relationship between Tria and Omni, only establishes his recommendation that we must use Omni’s regulations only due to their adjoining in geography. The differences between Tria and Omni may vary in climate, the species, the management, and so forth. It is highly possible that Tria’s fishes are frail, but Omni’s are strong. And maybe Tria is a new sanctuary, inclined to be influenced by the climate, while Omni established many years ago, not. And as for different protecting objective, Tria mainly in marine, Omni in all, the regulations of Omni may not suit for Tria, as fish is including to be protected. So, the author based his recommendation on ignoring these situations, which unadvisable.
你还可以说两点，如Omni的鱼量没下降可能是由于其他的原因而不是他们的regulations,还有你可以说arguer在最后说的Tria Island在采纳了这个regulations以后可以保护所有的marine wildlife但是光从能保护鱼不能推广到保护所有水生动物。

Finally, this argument is unconvincing, due to lack of evidence and false analysis. To bolster it, the author should provide information on the pollution and the statistics of fishing. To better assess it, the author should compare the regulations of the two, with a scientific measure, in practical attitude.

使用道具举报