[未归类] 过两天就考了，没底气，大家帮看看打多少分？ [复制链接]

holmz
UID: 178937

寄托新兵

Rank: 2

声望: 0
寄托币: 99
注册时间: 2004-9-16
精华: 0
帖子: 0

发表于 2005-4-10 13:22:42 |显示全部楼层

过两天就考了，没底气，大家帮看看打多少分？

Argument131 第6篇让砖头来得更猛烈些吧！
------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 argument, the recommends that the best way to restore Tria's(T) fish populations and to protect all of Tria's marine wildlife is to abandon the current regulations and adopt those of Omni(M). To support this conclusion, the author cites the fact that the fish population in T are declining while the fish population of O does not. Accordingly, the author projects that this phenomenem dues to the overfishing in T rather than pollution. It seems reasonable at the first glance, however, close scrutiny of the evidence reveals that the conclusion is flimsy.
First and foremost, the author bases her claim partially on the assumption that other alternative cause contribute to this phenonenem. However, the author provides no evidence to support that this is the case. The author overlook the possibility that it is the seasonal movements of the fish that lead to the delining of the fish population. It is also possible that this pollution is due to the movement of poplution water from other countries other than itself. Without ruling out such alternative explanations for the decline of fish population in T, the author can not defend the conclusion that the overfishing rather than pollution affects the fish population.

In addition, the author commits a fallacy of "false analogy". In her line of reasoning, the author assumes that T and O are comparable, nevertheless the author does not provide sufficient evidence to justfy that this is the case. It is equally possible that the kinds of fish in O are able to live with a serious pollutioned circumstance, while the fishes in T can not.In this aspect, the fishes in the two ereas to fundamenally dfiferent from each other. Without establishing that all other factor affecting the diparity in the two cities, the auhor cannot rely on this limited informaion about the conditons in T and M.
Last but not least, the author grounless assumes that the adoption of regulations of O to be the merely best way available. Nonetheless the author neglect the ther alternatives that might better, at least equally, to deal with the problem. For instance, we can adopt a plan allowing people to fish at diferent distriction at different time. lacking such evidence , we can not base our conclusion on the unwarranted assumption.

In summary, the concluison the author trying to prove is not as perfect as the author assumes. To better support the conclusion, the author should carefully rule out other alternatives that may influence the phenonenem. To better evaluate the arguemnt, the author needs to provide more evidence that the two cites are indeed comparable .

找阿找阿找朋友。。