argument131 【clover】 by 桔子susan

桔子susanUID: 2754084

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."




Tria Island bans dumping and offshore oil drilling within 20 miles of it, but fishing is not banned. While Omni bans all these wthin 10 miles with few decline in its fish populations. As a consequence, the arguer claims that the decline of fish population in Tria is due to overfishing but not pollution. In order to protect all of Tria's marine wildlife, Tria should adopt Omni's regulation. However, I find several logic flows in this argument.

First of all, without comprehensive comparison between the situation of Tria and Omni, simply adopting Omni's regulatuions may not help to protect Tria's marine wildlife. No information is provided about the variety of fish in Tria and Omni. If Tria's fish prefer to gather and live more than 10 miles far from the Tria, while the regulation failes to ban the action in that area, the regluation of Omni will not be such helpful. Moreover, Omni reports no significant decline only in its fish populations but not all marine wildlife populations. Marine wildlife includes fish, alga and other planktons. Each of these has different habitat and need diversity of protections. As a result, the regulation of Omni may even do little help to protect its own marine wildlife populations, to say nothing of protection of Tria’s marine wildlife populations.

Besides, the real reason of the decline in fish populations in Tria still remains uncertain. No evidence shows that the main cause is overfishing, but not pollution. Perhaps is the offshore oil drilling and dumping over 20 mile of Tria pollutes the habitat of the fish in Tria. It is known to all that oil and garbage could float with the flow of water and then enter the habitat of fish in Tria. As a result, pollution still could be a main cause. In addition, it is highly possible that other factors may result in the decline. Probably, some actions of human beings reduce the food amout of these fish. It is the cut of food chain but not overfishing that is responsible for the decline in fish populations. And in this way, the argument no longer holds water.

In conclusion, the auguer offers explanations and measure that were greeted with scepticism. In order to be more convinced, we should make further study on the reason which causes the decline of fish population in Tria and habitat of its marine wildlife. Only in this way can we take out more proper regulation to protect all of Tria's marine wildlife.