ARGUMENT107 求指导

yanjinhuiUID：2874613

TOPIC: ARGUMENT107 - The following appeared in an editorial in the Seatown newspaper.
"Seatown has a large port exclusively for fishing boats, whose owners pay fees for the upkeep of the docks and for facilities for cleaning engines and repairing nets. In recent years, declining fish populations have decreased fishing revenue and forced many owners to stop fishing altogether. As a result, the port has a high vacancy rate and port managers are considering allowing pleasure boats, including cruise ships and other large vessels, to use the port in order to increase revenue. But allowing pleasure boats into the port would be a mistake, because the fishing boats would be forced out of the port. We should preserve the port for the fishing fleet, which, unlike pleasure boats, contributes to the prosperity of Seatown."
WORDS: 434          TIME: 00:00:20          DATE: 2011/4/13 17:22:13
     In the ditorial, even though the decline of fish population in the port of Seatown have decreased fish revenue and forced many fish boat owner which pay for the port to stop fishing altogether, the author still rejects the proposal which allows pleasure boats into the port and concludes that the port in Seatown should preserve for the fishing fleet. In order to substantiate his conclusion, the author claims that allowing pleasure boats into the port would be mistake, because this meature will force the fishing boats, which contributes to the prosperity of Seatown, out of the port. At first glance, this argument appears to be somewhat appealing. A thorough scrutiny, however, reveals that this argument suffers several flaws which render it unpersuasive.
     In the first place, the author unfairly assumes that allowing pleasure boats into the port will inevitably force the fishing boat out. However, this is not necessarily the case. Perhaps, the port is so large that even with all the fish boats in, there is still a amount of space left. If so, from the aspect of fully use of the port, allowing pleasure boats into the port is really a good idea.
     Secondly, this argument depends on the assumption that, compared with fish boats, pleasure boats make less contribution to the port revenue. However, the author provides no evidence to fortify this assumption. Perhaps allowing pleasure boats enter into the port would tout many tours and visitors to come it. Even assuming the declination of fishing boats will harm the fisher's interest, it may bring another big big surprise of more opportunity and workplace. Comparing with the lost and gain, the advantages may prove this measure is wise decision.
    Thirdly, even assuming pleasure boats make less contribution than fish boats do and allowing pleasure into the port would replace the position of fish boats, it is still too hasty to conclude that the port should be kept exclusively for fish boats, especially in the circumstance of decline in fish revenues.The conclusion can be accepted only if the author could either demonstrate thatthe decline in fish population in recent years is temperant or propose some reasonable measure to return the fish population to its normal level in oder to attract more fish boats. However, there no such discussion in this argument.
    To sum up, this argument is not based on valid evidence and sound reasoning, both of which is indispensable for a reasonable argument. In order to draw a better conclusion, the author should reason more convincingly, cite some evidences which are more persuasive, and take every potential possibility into consideration.