argument107 限时烂作

猫猫624UID：171232

107 The following appeared in an editorial in the Seatown newspaper. 【107】
"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."

In the argument the speaker asserts that people should preserve the port for the fishing fleet which contributes to the prosperity of Seatown, rather than allow pleasure boats into the port, for the reason that fishing boats would be forced out of the port by pleasure boats. Closer scrutiny however reveals there are several logical flaws and gratuitous assumptions, which render the argument unconvincing.

The first problem of the argument lies in the assumption of the fishing boats would be forced out of the port by pleasure boats. However, the arguer does not provide substantiating evidence to prove this assumption. Perhaps, pleasure boats will not exercise any negative effects on fishing ones, or attract a large number of tourists who are likely to buy fish of Seatown. Even assuming pleasure boats would bring about some adverse influences on fishing boats, such as pollution or interrupt normal fishing behaviors. People may exert effective measures, involving adopting less polluted pleasure boats or confining rigid places of ports for these pleasure boats, in order to mitigate these concerns of people. Without providing strong evidence to bolster the assumption that fishing boats would be forced out of the port, the arguer's conclusion concerning limiting pleasure boats does not convince us.

Another problem of the argument involves in another assumption that pleasure boats will not contribute to the prosperity of Seatown. Yet, there is no evidence to substantiate this claim. It is possible that pleasure boats could attract a large number of tourists which bring about more revenues than fishing. It is also possible that tourism can stimulate the economic activities of Seatown, which expand larger market of fishing. Either possibility, if true, would cast severe doubt on arguer's conclusion that pleasure boats would not contribute to the prosperity of Seatown.

Finally, the arguer claims that people should preserve the port for fishing fleet, because fishing is conducive to prosperity of Seatown. However, the argument does not explain the reasons of declining fish populations and a high vacancy rate of port. Perhaps, people who engage in fishing find pleasure boats, which are relatively less laborious, would bring about more revenue compared with fishing. Or perhaps, the river of Seatown has suffered serious pollution and the quality and quantity of fish has greatly declined. Or it is also possible that the fee of upkeep of the docks and for facilities for cleaning engines and repairing nets is too high which cannot be afforded by fishing people. In this case, merely preserving the port for fishing fleet does not address the problem, and people should seek for real reason of declining fish populations and vacancy rate.

In conclusion, the argument is unsupportive as it stands. Rather than relying solely on some gratuitous assumption the arguer should provide clear evidence that preserving the port for the fishing fleet contribute to the prosperity of Seatown, and pleasure boats will exert negative influence on fishing boats.

疯子兔八哥UID：196616

呵呵,我今天考完了
有空来拍你

天晴了UID：201592

Even assuming pleasure boats would bring about some adverse influences on fishing boats, such as pollution or interrupt normal fishing behaviors. 【标点】 People may exert effective measures, involving adopting less polluted pleasure boats or confining rigid places of ports for these pleasure boats,------

Finally, the arguer claims that preserve the port for fishing fleet, because fishing is conducive to prosperity of Seatown is unfounded. However, the argument does not explain the reasons of declining fish populations and a high vacancy rate of port.   【忽然觉得arguer犯了刻舟求剑的错误 呵呵～】

文章很发散 很好 文笔也美的说  真的很难挑问题啊～我使劲在找。。。  ：）

猫猫624UID：171232

疯子兔八哥,谢谢你的机井,你的刀刀很可爱.欢迎拍我

猫猫624UID：171232

天晴了,谢谢拍砖.最后几天了.坚持!!

枫丹UID：166492

107 The following appeared in an editorial in the Seatown newspaper. 【107】
"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."

In the argument the speaker asserts that people should preserve the port for the fishing fleet which contributes to the prosperity of Seatown, rather than allow pleasure boats into the port, for the reason that fishing boats would be forced out of the port by pleasure boats. Closer scrutiny however reveals there are several logical flaws and gratuitous assumptions, which render the argument unconvincing.
开头中规中矩
The first problem of the argument lies in the assumption of the fishing boats would be forced out of the port by pleasure boats. However, the arguer does not provide substantiating evidence to prove this assumption. Perhaps, pleasure boats will not exercise any negative effects on fishing ones, or attract a large number of tourists who are likely to buy fish of Seatown. 这个说法有点牵强，可以说增加的游客有可能活跃渔业的市场，促进渔业的发展Even assuming pleasure boats would bring about some adverse influences on fishing boats, such as pollution or interrupt normal fishing behaviors. People may exert effective measures, involving adopting less polluted pleasure boats or confining rigid places of ports for these pleasure boats, in order to mitigate these concerns of people. Without providing strong evidence to bolster the assumption that fishing boats would be forced out of the port, the arguer's conclusion concerning limiting pleasure boats does not convince us.

Another problem of the argument involves in another assumption that pleasure boats will not contribute to the prosperity of Seatown. Yet, there is no evidence to substantiate this claim. It is possible that pleasure boats could attract a large number of tourists which bring about more revenues than fishing. 这个地方到了深化的地方了。It is also possible that tourism can stimulate the economic activities of Seatown, which expand larger market of fishing. 和上面重了，可以主要说除了渔业以外的其他可能性收入。Either possibility, if true, would cast severe doubt on arguer's conclusion that pleasure boats would not contribute to the prosperity of Seatown.

Finally, the arguer claims that people should preserve the port for fishing fleet, because fishing is conducive to prosperity of Seatown. However, the argument does not explain the reasons of declining fish populations and a high vacancy rate of port. Perhaps, people who engage in fishing find pleasure boats, which are relatively less laborious, would bring about more revenue compared with fishing. Or perhaps, the river of Seatown has suffered serious pollution and the quality and quantity of fish has greatly declined. Or it is also possible that the fee of upkeep of the docks and for facilities for cleaning engines and repairing nets is too high which cannot be afforded by fishing people. In this case, merely preserving the port for fishing fleet does not address the problem, and people should seek for real reason of declining fish populations and vacancy rate.
这段不错的
In conclusion, the argument is unsupportive as it stands. Rather than relying solely on some gratuitous assumption the arguer should provide clear evidence that preserving the port for the fishing fleet contribute to the prosperity of Seatown, and pleasure boats will exert negative influence on fishing boats.
结尾没啥问题，总的来说开可以，这个题目相对难点，深化的空间比较小，加油~~~

猫猫624UID：171232

枫丹,谢谢拍我.感觉argument时间还是比较紧.加油!.....