ARGUMENT131 by Misir (第八次作业) 还是未能成功限时

misirUID: 2684938

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: 320 | 425
TIME: 00:30:00
DATE: 2010/2/24 14:04:14

The conclusion that Tria Island should abandon its own regulations and adopt those of Omni is obvious at first glance, however, it cannot stand up to scrutiny as I will discuss below.

To begin with, the author makes a false dichotomy that if the decline of fish population is not caused by pollution, it must be caused by overfishing. There is no evidence that no other alternatives can explain the decline. For instance, the climate in Tria Island changes recently according to the global warming, which does not agree with the fish. As a result, they leave Tria Island for a better habitat. Or the statistic takes on the special time that the fish go to somewhere for mating and reproducing, and after the very time, the fish will return and the population will rise again. Thus, without ruling out this and that alternative, the author cannot assert that it is overfishing to [url=]blame[/url][s1] for only because pollution is not the cause.

Even assuming that the decline is caused by overfishing, the author can not make the hasty generation that Tria Island should abandon its own regulations and adopt those of Omni. First, the two islands may share a different geography, that is to say, the kind of fish will not be the same. They have different habits and choose different area to live. So the distance restrict to ban fishing may not be the same. Second, the author ignores that the fisher may not obey the rules of banning fishing. It is likely that the fishermen in Tria Island make living by fishing and they must go fishing to survive. Each scenario, if true, will weaken the author's argument.

Finally, even assuming that Tria Island adopts the regulation of Omni, there is no evidence that this regulation can achieve what the author hope. First, the author fails to provide additional evidence that the regulations of Omni can protect all of Tria Island marine wildlife. What’s more, this way may not be the best way to restore Tria Island’s fish population, for the author overlooks some other causes leading to the decline. What if the increasing predators which make the decline? Or the frequent pleasure boats interrupt the normal life of the fish. Thus, the author should make a circumspect observation to make the suggestion more persuasive.

In conclusion, to make the argument more convincing, the author must take other possibilities which will cause the decline into account, and make sure the regulations which is valid in Omni Island can be useful in Tria Island.

[s1]be to blame (for sth) to be responsible for sth bad: If anyone's to blame, it's me. ◆ Which driver was to blame for the accident?