argument 131,还有十天，大家互拍！

bluefiaryUID: 184899

ArgumentX 额外题库 ------摘要------
作者：寄托家园作文版普通用户     共用时间：30分2秒     394 words
从2005年2月10日7时2分到2005年2月10日7时30分
------题目------
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.'
------正文------
In this analysis, the arguer suggests that the Tria Island should abandon their regulations and adopt those of Omni in order to restore Tria's fish populations and to protect all of Tria's marine wildlife. To substantiate his advice, he cites the successful example of Omni Island.  Lack of thorough analysis and detailed investigation, the argument is unconvincing for several critical reasons.

First of all, the arguer makes a gratuitous comparison between the two islands. There is no evidence to show they are indeed comparable. The two environments may fundamentally different, such as, the geography, the industry, or even the conditions in the ocean. The arguer is lack of enough statistics to proof that the two islands could be compared, though the policy functions well in Omni Island, it may not be suitable in Tria Island. Therefore, it is completely unwarranted to draw any conclusion from it.

Besides, the arguer fails to consider many other reasons that can contribute the decline of its fish populations, not merely pollution. The weather, other decline of the animals line, and so forth can also cause their population to fail. After all, the Tria Island did  establish regulations to ban dumping and offshore oil drilling within 20 miles, it is highly possible not the pollution to be blamed.

Further more, granted that we adopt the policy of Omni Island, its main success reported is no significant decline in its fish populations, do other wildlife's populations show no decline, either? The arguer apparently do not consider this results, it may be that the execution of the new policy causes other kinds of wildlife to decline, which may be not our original purpose.   

However, to adopt the policy of Omni may be not the best way to restore Tria's fish populations and to protect all of Tria's marine wildlife, it is possible there may be other policy that is more better than this. Thus, the arguer is hasty to get the conclusion that it is the "best" way to improve our situation.

To sum up, the evidence the arguer provides is unconvincing to lead the suggestion drawn from it. To strengthen his advice, he needs to investigate the situations of Tria Island to make sure whether it is suitable to adopt the Omni's policy. Furthermore, he needs to find out the real reason that causes the decline of fish populations.

laofoUID: 165673

No.1 argument 131,还有十天，大家互拍！ bluefiary
ArgumentX 额外题库 ------摘要------
作者：寄托家园作文版普通用户 共用时间：30分2秒 394 words
从2005年2月10日7时2分到2005年2月10日7时30分
------题目------
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.'
------正文------
In this analysis, the arguer suggests that the Tria Island should abandon their regulations and adopt those of Omni in order to restore Tria's fish populations and to protect all of Tria's marine wildlife. To substantiate his 【or her】advice, he 【】cites the successful example of Omni Island. Lack of thorough analysis and detailed investigation, the argument is unconvincing for several critical reasons.

First of all, the arguer makes a gratuitous comparison between the two islands. There is no evidence to show they are indeed comparable. The two environments 【The environments of two islands’】may fundamentally different, such as, the geography, the industry, or even the conditions in the ocean. The arguer is lack of enough statistics to proof【prove】 that the two islands could be compared, though the policy functions well in Omni Island, it may not be suitable in Tria Island. Therefore, it is completely unwarranted to draw any conclusion from it.

Besides, the arguer fails to consider many other reasons that can contribute the decline of its[删its] fish populations, not merely【Adv】 pollution. The weather, other decline of the animals line, and so forth【and so forth能这么用】 can also cause their population to fail【diminish， decline,decrease不要总用一个啦】. After all, the Tria Island did establish regulations to ban dumping and offshore oil drilling within 20 miles, it is highly possible not the pollution to be blamed.

Further more, granted that we adopt the policy of Omni Island, its main success reported is no significant decline in its fish populations, do other wildlife's populations show no decline, either? The arguer apparently do not consider this results, it may be that the execution of the new policy causes other kinds of wildlife to decline, which may be not our original purpose.

However, to adopt the policy of Omni may be not the best way to restore Tria's fish populations and to protect all of Tria's marine wildlife, it is possible【that】 there may be other policy that is more better than this. Thus, the arguer is hasty to get the conclusion that it is the "best" way to improve our situation.

To sum up, the evidence the arguer provides is unconvincing to lead 【to】the suggestion 【drawn from it是不是有点重复了，省去吧】. To strengthen his 【or her】advice, he【】 needs to investigate the situations of Tria Island to make sure whether it is suitable to adopt the Omni's policy. Furthermore, he 【】needs to find out the real reason that causes the decline of fish populations.

还需努力
共勉吧，我也快该考试了，好紧张
赶紧准备去了

comingsoonUID: 175137

个人觉得楼主的第四段可能有点牵强，难道禁止倾倒废油和禁止在10miles以内钓鱼会导致其它生物的灭绝？不过我也不太清楚，呵呵。