Argument 131 希望大家狠狠地批改啊

扁鲨嘴UID: 185798

Argument 131
The following appeared in an environmental newsletter pulished 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 is to abandon our regulations and adopt those of Omni.”

The suggestion above based on a unfounded reasoning.It should not be used to protect Tria’s marine.
First,the writer’s conclusion of why Tria’s  fish reduced more than in Omni Island based one a unstale faundation. The writer assumed that.If a method which be use in Omni verified to be effective could promote the same effect when be use in Tria.In fact,there is no sign which shows Omni Island and Tria Island are totally the same.They have different residences different climate,different quality of sea water etc.
If all the periferal conditions are all the same,the crucial point-fish itself can not be evenly same.For instance,if the fishes in Omni could be poisoned by 2 pills of antibiotic drugs which dissolved in the sea in a certain cubic span.And the by using 4pills could lead the same result towards the fishes live in Tria.Then we can not use an amount of pills as indicators to show how many will be killed for each.
Pollution ,which is a unvoidble problem in modern society,could ogenerate from verieties of channles.As said just now, dumping and offshore oil drilling are not the only
Origin of pollution to the fishes.There are some other factors ,such like,chemical rubishes,omiting oil from ships,people’s daily life lasers etc.Some of them even played more importment role on environmental pollution.
The quatity of fishes is not valid to show the decreasing rate.For instance,If in Omni Island ,it originally had 3000 fish,after filfuled the regulations,the quantity is 2500,Meanwhile ,in Tria ,the amount of 5000 to4300.That seems the later one reduce more,but the result of it is more effective that the first one.
Some other factors also influence the result of decline of fish.Such like, do the local people eat the local fish.If there is no need,then even if one has a regulation of overfishing,maybe it won’t be less fish be pull out than a place has no need for fishing.
A sort of logical fallacies are included in the reasoning ,some premises were mising.To make it more precise,more data should be collect by a scientific-oriented purpose.And the losing premise should be added to make the argument sound.(473 include the title)

DendisUID: 158017

argument和题号之间不用空格，每段请分行

请仔细看看needle姐姐的发贴格式，格式错误不太会有人帮忙改文章的

扁鲨嘴UID: 185798

我改完再贴一个．