Argument131 纯练笔，限时，模版总结中

dinddind2003UID: 196353

TOPIC：ARGUMENT 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."
WORDS：340          TIME：0:30:00          DATE：2006-2-8

This suggestion is unpersuasive in a few aspects as following:

First, the words "no significant" are too vague to prove the fact that the number of fish of Omni did not decrease a lot. It is possible that there were 10000 fish in the past, but now the number is only 9000. In someone's eyes this change maybe insignificant, but if this trend goes on in the next ten years, there will be no fish at all.

Second, even if the words "no significant" are clear, the data based on Omin's reports is still unpersuasive. No evidence can prove that Omni has the responsibility to report the decrease of the number of fish, nor no evidence can prove that the report of Omin told the truth. It is possible that severe decrease of the number of fish had happened but Omni did not tell people this fact to prevent the society from being unstable.

Third, even if the number of fish in Omni did not decrease, this fact may not result of the ban of Omni. Perhaps the pollution of Omni is heavy and people also fish a lot, but the fish there have a strong ability to survive and to increase their number.

There are still many other problems with the argument: even if the ban contribute a lot to maintain the number of fish in Omni, the author also make mistakes to simply equal the condition of Omni with that of Tria Island(TI), so the ban which is useful in Omni may not work in TI. For example, may be the area of the marine of TI is much larger than that of Omni, so the ban which is only relevant to 10 miles is not proper. Furthermore, the author can not convince me that the decrease of fish number of TI is result from fishing, because the author showed no evidence to indicate the condition of fishing or the condition of pollution in TI at that time.

In sum, the author needs clearer information to reach the conclusion.

ChunyanLi2005UID: 2124266

你的开头结尾是不是太精湛了！ 扩充点回更充实吧！

你找到的flaws挺多的， 但我觉得你的第四段是论证得最好的，我想它是你的文章中的精华。 其他段指出的漏洞也很明确，单太痛快了。再添点肉就好了！