argument131 （kito）谢谢拍砖！

智恩UID: 2160717

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 over-fishing, 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."
提纲：
1 没有证据说明T的鱼数量下降是因为过渡捕鱼造成的；（①没提供这次捕鱼前后鱼群的数量，是否这次捕鱼后，捕鱼量上升了。②很有可能是生态环境遭到破坏而导致的鱼类数量下降；虽然规定了禁止倒垃圾，但并不能保证没有人倒。如果有垃圾倒入海里，那么就会导致海水营养盐的比例失衡，从而导致数量的下降；③即使不是T地的污染造成的，也可能是其他地方的污染漂过来的；）
2 错误类比，T和O是两个不同的地方，鱼的种类也不同，水质也不同，污染的程度也不同，抵抗污染的潜力也不同，所以完全采用O的方法是错误的。要具体问题具体分析。
正文：（448字）
In this newsletter, the author recommends that the most effective way to restore Tria’s fish populations and to protect all of Tria’s marine wildlife is to abandon current regulations and adopt those of Omni. To support this recommendation, the author quoted the regulation of Omni and Omni reports no significant decline in its fish populations. In addition, the author points out that the reason for the decline in fish population in Tria’s fish waters is the result of over-fishing, not pollution. However this argument is logically flawed in various respects.

On the one hand, there is no evidence to substantiate that the decline of Tria’s fish population results from over-fishing. First, the author fails to provide the before and after population of fish and whether after this fishing, the fish population is dramatically increasing. If the author could not offer such data, it is not warranted to conclude that Tria’s waters exists over-fishing. Second, there is an entire possibility that the destruction of eco-environment lead to the decline of fish. For example, the salinity of Tria’s waters increases and then the environment that is appropriate for fish which favors living in low salinity dwindles, which might result in the reduction of spawn of fish. Thus the population of fish lessens. Moreover, although the regulations ban dumping, it is not guaranteed that no dumping behavior exists. If dumping is the case, this behavior could make the nutritional salt of Tria’s waters lack balance, which consequently brings about the decline of fish population. Finally, even if the decline of Tria’s fish population is not caused by pollution, it is highly possible that other waters pollution is carried by the current of water. Without taking into account and ruling out these possibilities, the author’s conclusion that over-fishing causes the Tria’s fish decline.

On the other hand, the author commits a false analogy between these two different waters. As a matter of fact, different waters may have different sorts of fish which suit for dissimilar waters. Also different waters involve their unique characteristics and the extent of pollution varies. Besides, the potential of resisting pollution is not similar. Therefore absent of considering these factors, it is arbitrary and even presumptuous for the author to directly adopt Omni’s regulations without any change.

In conclusion, close scrutiny of this argument, however reveals that none of the evidence the author cites could lend credible support to this recommendation. To strengthen it, the author must provide us information to demonstrate that over-fishing is the most important reason for the decline of Tria’s fish population. What is more, to better evaluate it, we need to know the similar circumstance between the Tria waters and the Omni waters.

jingjingtousUID: 2164820

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 over-fishing, 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."
提纲：
1 没有证据说明T的鱼数量下降是因为过渡捕鱼造成的；（①没提供这次捕鱼前后鱼群的数量，是否这次捕鱼后，捕鱼量上升了。捕鱼前后？应该是保护措施出台前后吧？
  ②很有可能是生态环境遭到破坏而导致的鱼类数量下降；虽然规定了禁止倒垃圾，但并不能保证没有人倒。如果有垃圾倒入海里，那么就会导致海水营养盐的比例失衡，从而导致数量的下降；这点我很想写的，呵呵 ③即使不是T地的污染造成的，也可能是其他地方的污染漂过来的；）这点有新意哦！
2 错误类比，T和O是两个不同的地方，鱼的种类也不同，水质也不同，污染的程度也不同，抵抗污染的潜力也不同，所以完全采用O的方法是错误的。要具体问题具体分析。好，分析得太好了！恩，双脚鼓掌！
正文：（448字）
In this newsletter, the author recommends that the most effective way to restore Tria’s fish populations and to protect all of Tria’s marine wildlife is to abandon current regulations and adopt those of Omni. To support this recommendation, the author quoted好词，我下次不用cited了  the regulation of Omni and Omni reports no significant decline in its fish populations.Omni reports.....也是quote得内容吗？不如改成Omni's reports that no.....你看如何？ In addition, the author points out that the reason for the decline in fish population in Tria’s fish waters is the result of over-fishing, the reason is the result 感觉怪怪的，去掉the result of 怎么样？ not pollution. However this argument is logically flawed in various respects.

On the one hand, there is no evidence to substantiate that the decline of Tria’s fish population results from over-fishing. First, the author fails to provide the before and after你用它来修饰population好像有点不合适，是否能用provide the fish population before and after the implementation of the marine sanctuary？ population of fish and whether after this fishing regulation 或 sanctuary, the fish population is dramatically increasing. If the author could not offer such data, it is not warranted to conclude that Tria’s waters exists over-fishing. 这句有点别扭，你看这样好不好：conclude that there is over-fishing in the water-areas of Tria  Second, there is an entire possibility that the destruction of eco-environment没见过有这个词，你要说生态环境吗？直接用environment或者ecosystem吧？ lead to the decline of fish populations. For example, the salinity of Tria’s waters water increases and then the environment the living scale that is appropriate for fish which favors living in low salinity saline waters dwindles好词, which might result in the reduction of spawn of fish. Thus the population of fish lessens 好词！. Moreover, although the regulations ban dumping, it is not guaranteed does not guarantee that no dumping behavior exists. If dumping is the case, this behavior could make the nutritional salt of Tria’s waters water lack balance, 看看可否这样：the behavior could break the ecological balance of Tria's water-areas,  which consequently brings about the decline of fish population. Finally, even if the decline of Tria’s fish population is not caused by pollution, it is highly possible that other waters pollution the population in other water-areas is carried by the current of water. Without taking into account and ruling out these possibilities, the author’s conclusion that over-fishing causes the Tria’s fish decline is unpersuasive你好像漏掉了. 这段分析的很好，很透彻，我自愧不如！

On the other hand, the author commits a false analogy between these two different waters. As a matter of fact, different waters water真的能加复数吗？？？？？ may have different sorts of fish which suit for dissimilar waters water. Also different waters water involve their has its unique characteristics and the extent of pollution varies. Besides, the potential of resisting pollution is not similar in the two areas. Therefore, absent of considering these factors, it is arbitrary好词！我下次要用它了，呵呵 and even presumptuous这个更喜欢！！ for the author to directly completely 如何？语气更强一些，你觉得呢？ adopt Omni’s regulations without any change. 这段论证的词语太棒了，arbitrary和presumptuous我很喜欢！

In conclusion, close scrutiny of this argument, however, reveals that none of the evidence the author cites could lend credible support to this recommendation. To strengthen it, the author must provide us information to demonstrate that over-fishing is the most important reason for the decline of Tria’s fish population. What is more, to better evaluate it, we need to know the similar circumstance between the Tria waters water and the Omni waters water. 结尾简单明了，好也！

韩智恩这篇文章写的真好， 论证很有力度，潜词上有进步喔！只是我不知道water能不能用复数，在表达“水域”的时候，我认为保险点你还是用water area吧，如果你非用复数不可那就water areas吧？ 呵呵，睡觉了！

jingjingtousUID: 2164820

原来是我审题不认真，waters 是对的，实在抱歉！！

dganggangUID: 2125101

提纲：
1 没有证据说明T的鱼数量下降是因为过渡捕鱼造成的；（①没提供这次捕鱼前后鱼群的数量，是否这次捕鱼后，捕鱼量上升了。②很有可能是生态环境遭到破坏而导致的鱼类数量下降；虽然规定了禁止倒垃圾，但并不能保证没有人倒。如果有垃圾倒入海里，那么就会导致海水营养盐的比例失衡，从而导致数量的下降；③即使不是T地的污染造成的，也可能是其他地方的污染漂过来的；） （理由正确 但好像不需要在这里写这么多可能性）
2 错误类比，T和O是两个不同的地方，鱼的种类也不同，水质也不同，污染的程度也不同，抵抗污染的潜力也不同，所以完全采用O的方法是错误的。要具体问题具体分析。right

正文：（448字）
In this newsletter, the author recommends that the most effective way to restore Tria’s fish populations and to protect all of Tria’s marine wildlife is to abandon the current regulations and adopt those of Omni. To support this recommendation, the author quoted the regulation of Omni and Omni reports no significant decline in its fish populations. In addition, the author points out that the reason for the decline in fish population in Tria’s fish waters is the result of over-fishing, not pollution. However this argument is logically flawed in various respects.  我个人感觉开头太长 会占用很多时间

On the one hand, there is no evidence to substantiate that the decline of Tria’s fish population results from over-fishing. First, the author fails to provide the before and after population of fish and whether after this fishing?, the fish population is dramatically increasing. If the author could not offer such data, it is not warranted to conclude that Tria’s waters exists over-fishing(我没想到这点）. Second, there is an entire possibility that the destruction of eco-environment lead to the decline of fish. For example, the salinity of Tria’s waters increases and then the environment that is appropriate for fish which favors living in low salinity dwindles, which might result in the reduction of spawn of fish. Thus the population of fish lessens. Moreover, although the regulations ban dumping, it is not guaranteed that no dumping behavior exists. If dumping is the case, this behavior could make the nutritional salt of Tria’s waters lack balance, which consequently brings about the decline of fish population. Finally, even if the decline of Tria’s fish population is not caused by pollution, it is highly possible that other waters pollution is carried by the current of water. Without taking into account and ruling out these possibilities, the author’s conclusion that over-fishing causes the Tria’s fish decline. 这一段很好 但似乎可以分出一部分作为第三段的驳斥

On the other hand, the author commits a false analogy between these two different waters. As a matter of fact, different waters may have different sorts of fish which suit for dissimilar waters. Also different waters involve their unique characteristics and the extent of pollution varies. Besides, the potential of resisting pollution is not similar. Therefore absent of considering these factors, it is arbitrary and even presumptuous for the author to directly adopt Omni’s regulations without any change.

In conclusion, close scrutiny of this argument, however reveals that none of the evidence the author cites could lend credible support to this recommendation. To strengthen it, the author must provide us information to demonstrate that over-fishing is the most important reason for the decline of Tria’s fish population. What is more, to better evaluate it, we need to know the similar circumstance between the Tria waters and the Omni waters.

很强啊 如果不是鸡蛋里挑骨头 这一篇我给5。5+
但前提是30分钟准时完成的哦