Argument131 附提纲，敬请大家随便拍，必回拍

Archer1123UID: 206148

ＡＲＧＵＭＥＮＴ总频率２５
131. 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."
有两点疑惑：一是开头说明T岛的保护区是为了保护某种海洋哺乳动物，那鱼类是否算在其中呢？二是O岛没有上报鱼类数量明显下降，那鱼类数量是否真的没有下降呢？
不知道这两点是否可以算是驳斥点，confused

1.        无证据表明T岛鱼类数量减少不是由于污染（未采水样，其它污染源，执法是否到位）
2.        无证据表明T岛鱼类数量减少是由于过度捕获，（气候，疾病，天敌，迁徙）
3.        T岛与O岛是否有类比性
4.        适合保护鱼类也不一定适合保护全部海生物

In the argument, the author claims that Tria Island (TI) should adopt the regulations of Omni Island (OI) in order to restore TI’s fish population and to protect all of marine wildlife. At the first glance, the argument seems plausible and reasonable, because the author makes a contrast between TI and OI to substantiate the conclusion, however, this statement is not persuasive as it seems and cannot be accepted under careful examination and scrutiny.

To begin with, without any evidence, the author rashly rules out one possibility of leading the decline of fish population—pollution. The original regulations cannot guarantee that TI’s water has not been polluted. It is possible that dumping and offshore oil drilling beyond 20 miles of TI might pollute the water. Perhaps not all citizens nearby TI act on the ban entirely, some of them break the regulations and result in the pollution. Even if all citizens abide by the regulation, possibly there is other pollution access, such as the air pollution or acid rain, which cause the water of TI is polluted. Lacking of scientific data about the water condition in TI, it is hard to convince us that the water in TI has not been polluted.  

More over, the author fails to take into account other possibilities causing the decline of fish, even if we concede the water is not polluted. How about the weather and water temperature recently, maybe it is too hot or cold for fish to survive. Whether there are some fatal or contagious diseases among fish, perhaps illness is the primary reason for decrease. The possibility cannot be excluded that the natural enemy of fish appeared in TI’ water recently. Any of possibilities above would conduce to the decline of fish. If author cannot rule out those, the conclusion that the decline is result in overfishing would be weakened greatly

In addition, the author makes an insufficient analogy between TI and OI. There is no evidence provided in the argument to bolster that TI and OI are similar enough to make an analogy. Possibly, the water conditions, the sort and habit of fish in TI and OI are different totally. It is entirely possible that there are few fish living within 10 miles of TI, the regulations ban overfishing are invalid. That is to say, the effective regulations in QI maybe not fit for TI, even bring about the adverse effect to TI possibly.   

Last but not the least, even if the OI regulations can be applied in TI and take effect to restore the fish population, it does not warrantee the regulations is effective for protecting all of TI's marine wildlife. Common sense tells us other marine species might have different habits from fish.

To sum up, based on what has been discussed and analyzed above, it is obvious that the argument is invalid and misleading, and the conclusion reached in the argument is too presumptuous to be accepted. In order to make the conclusion more convincing, the author should provide scientific and specific data of TI’s water condition, rule out other possibilities rustling in the decline of fish, and prove that the OI’s regulations would be same effective in TI.

frankkuUID: 2136240

刚才一直也登不上GTER，以为被黑了呢。
In the argument, the author claims that Tria Island (TI) should adopt the regulations of Omni Island (OI) in order to restore TI’s fish population and to protect all of marine wildlife. At the first glance, the argument seems plausible and reasonable, because the author makes a contrast between TI and OI to substantiate the conclusion, however, this statement is not persuasive as it seems and cannot be accepted under careful examination and scrutiny.

To begin with, without any evidence, the author rashly rules out one possibility of leading the decline of fish population—pollution. The original regulations cannot guarantee that TI’s water has not been polluted. It is possible that dumping and offshore oil drilling beyond 20 miles of TI might pollute the water. Perhaps not all citizens nearby TI act on the ban entirely, some of them break the regulations and result in the pollution. Even if all citizens abide by the regulation, possibly there is other pollution access, such as the air pollution or acid rain, which cause the water of TI is polluted（感觉有点问题）. Lacking of scientific data about the water condition in TI, it is hard to convince us that the water in TI has not been polluted.  

More over, the author fails to take into account other possibilities causing the decline of fish, even if we concede the water is not polluted. How about the weather and water temperature recently, maybe it is too hot or cold for fish to survive. Whether there are some fatal or contagious diseases among fish, perhaps illness is the primary reason for decrease. The possibility cannot be excluded that the natural enemy of fish appeared in TI’s water recently. Any of possibilities above would conduce to the decline of fish. If the author cannot rule out those, the conclusion that the decline is result in overfishing would be weakened greatly

In addition, the author makes an insufficient analogy between TI and OI. There is no evidence provided in the argument to bolster that TI and OI are similar enough to make an analogy. Possibly, the water conditions, the sort and habit of fish in TI and OI are different totally. It is entirely possible that there are few fish living within 10 miles of TI, the regulations ban overfishing are invalid. That is to say, the effective regulations in OI maybe not fit for TI, even bring about the adverse effect to TI possibly.   

Last but not the least, even if the OI regulations can be applied in TI and take effect to restore the fish population, it does not warrantee the regulations is effective for protecting all of TI's marine wildlife. Common sense tells us other marine species might have different habits from fish.

To sum up, based on what has been discussed and analyzed above, it is obvious that the argument is invalid and misleading, and the conclusion reached in the argument is too presumptuous to be accepted. In order to make the conclusion more convincing, the author should provide morescientific and specific data of TI’s water condition, rule out other possibilities rustling in the decline of fish, and prove that the OI’s regulations would be same effective in TI.
对于疑惑，我觉得，保护鱼类是为了保护原文所指的某种海洋生物的食物来源，鱼的数量的减少势必导致这种海洋哺乳动物的数量下降。为了保护某种海洋生物——而去保护鱼类，就是这个道理吧。所以又引出另外一个问题就是不过度捕捞鱼类，仅仅是一个保护鱼类的办法，不一定可以保护那种海洋生物，因为还有很多影响那种海洋哺乳动物繁衍的条件。而第二个疑惑，我还没有想好，我暂时还是将O认作是没有变动吧。否则他也就从根本上没有理由劝说废除T方法转而使用O方法了。我觉得ARCHER写得真的不错，我一般就是看已有的分析，自己想得不多，今天的作业开始要向ARCHER好好学习！

Archer1123UID: 206148

谢谢先，呵呵
In the argument, the author claims that Tria Island (TI) should adopt the regulations of Omni Island (OI) in order to restore TI’s fish population and to protect all of marine wildlife. At the first glance, the argument seems plausible and reasonable, because the author makes a contrast between TI and OI to substantiate the conclusion, however, this statement is not persuasive as it seems and cannot be accepted under careful examination and scrutiny.

To begin with, without any evidence, the author rashly rules out one possibility of leading the decline of fish population—pollution. The original regulations cannot guarantee that TI’s water has not been polluted. It is possible that dumping and offshore oil drilling beyond 20 miles of TI might pollute the water. Perhaps not all citizens nearby TI act on the ban entirely, some of them break the regulations and result in the pollution. Even if all citizens abide by the regulation, possibly there is other pollution access, such as the air pollution or acid rain, which cause the water of TI is polluted（感觉有点问题）. 句子改为：...which cause the pollution of water in TI. Lacking of scientific data about the water condition in TI, it is hard to convince us that the water in TI has not been polluted.  

More over, the author fails to take into account other possibilities causing the decline of fish, even if we concede the water is not polluted. How about the weather and water temperature recently, maybe it is too hot or cold for fish to survive. Whether there are some fatal or contagious diseases among fish, perhaps illness is the primary reason for decrease. The possibility cannot be excluded that the natural enemy of fish appeared in TI’s water recently. Any of possibilities above would conduce to the decline of fish. If the author cannot rule out those, the conclusion that the decline is result in overfishing would be weakened greatly

In addition, the author makes an insufficient analogy between TI and OI. There is no evidence provided in the argument to bolster that TI and OI are similar enough to make an analogy. Possibly, the water conditions, the sort and habit of fish in TI and OI are different totally. It is entirely possible that there are few fish living within 10 miles of TI, the regulations ban overfishing are invalid. That is to say, the effective regulations in OI maybe not fit for TI, even bring about the adverse effect to TI possibly.   

Last but not the least, even if the OI regulations can be applied in TI and take effect to restore the fish population, it does not warrantee the regulations is effective for protecting all of TI's marine wildlife. Common sense tells us other marine species might have different habits from fish.

To sum up, based on what has been discussed and analyzed above, it is obvious that the argument is invalid and misleading, and the conclusion reached in the argument is too presumptuous to be accepted. In order to make the conclusion more convincing, the author should provide morescientific and specific data of TI’s water condition, rule out other possibilities rustling in the decline of fish, and prove that the OI’s regulations would be same effective in TI.
对于疑惑，我觉得，保护鱼类是为了保护原文所指的某种海洋生物的食物来源，鱼的数量的减少势必导致这种海洋哺乳动物的数量下降。为了保护某种海洋生物——而去保护鱼类，就是这个道理吧。所以又引出另外一个问题就是不过度捕捞鱼类，仅仅是一个保护鱼类的办法，不一定可以保护那种海洋生物，因为还有很多影响那种海洋哺乳动物繁衍的条件。我明白你的意思了，但是题目中没有这种推断－－保护鱼类是为了保护原文所指的某种海洋生物的食物来源，我们就很难针对这个进行驳斥。所以才不知如何是好而第二个疑惑，我还没有想好，我暂时还是将O认作是没有变动吧。否则他也就从根本上没有理由劝说废除T方法转而使用O方法了。

[ 本帖最后由 Archer1123 于 2006-2-4 16:54 编辑 ]