argument131 禁止捕鱼 互拍吧！

symphony22UID：203058

Argument131  第16篇 让砖头来得更猛烈些吧！
------摘要------
作者：寄托家园作文版普通用户     共用时间：37分9秒     579 words
从2005年3月16日15时31分到2005年3月16日15时0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 argument , the author recomend that the best way to restore Tria' s fish populaiton and to protect all of Tra's marine wildlife  is to abandon their  regulations and adopt those of Omni.To bolster his assertion , the editor altough regulation ban dumping and offshore oil drilling within 20miles of Tria, as long as fishing is not banned the population of the fish decline ,and Omni's banned fishing, thus there is no significant declination on that island.However, careful scrutiny of this argument reveal it is logical problematic in several ways.

A threshold problem of this argument is that the author fail to provide enough affirm information that all the declination is due to fishing rather than other reasons.First the author's conclusion merely based on the regulation that dumping and oil drilling is banned.It is entirely possible that before the ban the pollution in that water area is extremely swere and the fish has suffered from the bad living conditions as well as all the noxious beteria in the water for a long time,only after the regulation , they can never hold up any more and some of them died, or perhaps there came a shark at that time , which need a large amount of fish to fill its stomach per day ,on wonder the population of fish would decline.Without  considering and ruling all these possibilities the author can not convince me that abandon the current regulation and adopt those of Omni would be benefit.

Another pitfall of this assertion is that,all  the editor's conclusion merely based on one factor that once there is a ban carried out by the government , people would definitely accept it and obey it .Yet it is not be the case. In fact , it is entirely possible that it is by no means a easy task to sway the people 's habit  , the have formed such a habit that dumping in the sea everyday ,they would like to continue this habit for that the author did not tell us the local government provided a new place for dumping.What is more, even they provided ,whether people will do as they required is still a question.Lavking consideration about these and that possibilities would rendering the argument unconvincing as it stands.

Last but not the least, the author claim that the regulations which is workable on Omni shore will also workable in Tria .However , this is often not be the case.In fact , due to the dinstictive geographic , the  climate conditions  and other factors,it is usually unworkable.For example , if Omni is a tourism city, fishing only cover little percentage of their economy,thus ban fishing would benefit both the environment as well as their economy ,it is a wise choice.While for Tria, most people live on fishing , to put it different , it is the pillar of its economy, can the government easily ban fishing? They would render the whole economy jaropidized.Therefore, the author 's recommendation is unconcvincing as it stands.

In sum, this argument is not well supported, before i accept this recommendation, the author need to provide more clear informaiton that all the declination is indeed due to fishing in stead of other factors and once there is a ban of dumping and offshore oil drilling , the people will strictly follow the rule and never break it.In addtion, altough they are two different places, all the conditions and situation are all fit the ban.

starrynightUID：204598

In this argument , the author recomend that the best way to restore Tria' s fish populaiton and to protect all of Tra's marine wildlife is to abandon their regulations and adopt those of Omni.To bolster his assertion , the editor （差一个动词吧？）altough regulation ban dumping and offshore oil drilling within 20miles of Tria, as long as fishing is not banned the population of the fish decline ,and Omni's banned fishing, thus there is no significant declination on that island.However, careful scrutiny of this argument reveal it is logical problematic in several ways.(我的开头一写论据，就肯定没有时间写结尾了，你这样写时间够吗？)

A threshold problem of this argument is that the author fail to provide enough affirm information that all the declination is due to fishing rather than other reasons.First the author's conclusion merely based on the regulation that dumping and oil drilling is banned.It is entirely possible that before the ban the pollution in that water area is extremely swere and the fish has suffered from the bad living conditions as well as all the noxious beteria in the water for a long time,only after the regulation , they can never hold up any more and some of them died, or perhaps there came a shark at that time , which need a large amount of fish to fill its stomach per day ,on wonder the population of fish would decline.（鲨鱼这个假设有意思，不过我感觉不太科学：） 你可以反驳说作者没有提出任何证据说明存在过度捕鱼的情况，可能只是正常的捕鱼行为） Without considering and ruling all these possibilities the author can not convince me that abandon the current regulation and adopt those of Omni would be benefit.

Another pitfall of this assertion is that,all the editor's conclusion merely based on one factor that once there is a ban carried out by the government , people would definitely accept it and obey it .Yet it is not be the case. In fact , it is entirely possible that it is by no means a easy task to sway the people 's habit , the have formed such a habit that （is） dumping in the sea everyday ,they would like to continue this habit for that the author did not tell us the local government provided a new place for dumping. What is more, even they provided ,whether people will do as they required is still a question.Lavking consideration about these and that possibilities would rendering the argument unconvincing as it stands.

Last but not the least, the author claim that the regulations which is workable on Omni shore will also workable in Tria .（这段的开头用The argument is based on a false analogy 一句是不是更好一些？出现类比错误我喜欢用这一句）However , this is often not be the case.In fact , due to the dinstictive geographic , the climate conditions and other factors,it is usually unworkable.For example , if Omni is a tourism city, fishing only cover little percentage of their economy,thus ban fishing would benefit both the environment as well as their economy ,it is a wise choice.While for Tria, most people live on fishing , to put it different , it is the pillar of its economy, can the government easily ban fishing? They would render the whole economy jaropidized.Therefore, the author 's recommendation is unconcvincing as it stands.

In sum, this argument is not well supported, before i accept this recommendation, the author need to provide more clear informaiton that all the declination is indeed due to fishing in stead of other factors and once there is a ban of dumping and offshore oil drilling , the people will strictly follow the rule and never break it.In addtion, （the arguer must present facts to demonstrate that 加上这个我觉得好一些）altough they are two different places, all the conditions and situation are all fit the ban.

反驳的比较全面，也比较细致，感觉不错。语言上应该再加强一些。另外如果有时间的话，每一段在最后加上一个总结句，可能效果要好一些。

symphony22UID：203058

谢谢你的建议！

今天才开始弄argument 感觉就是思路不清晰，语言更顾不上了，最重要的就是时间不够啊！！5555555~~~~~~~~``