argument131 加州阳光第十次作业,欢迎指教:)

timboyUID: 193944

131The 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.

1 unconvinced relation
2 false comparison
3 incredible suggestion
The argument is well-presented but not thoroughly well-supported. By giving some facts in two different location, the author claims that Tria(T) should adopt the regulation of Omin(O) instead of that of T to protect marine wildlife and restore fish population in T. With careful scrutiny, the newsletter has some critical defects as follows.

To begin with, the author fails to provide evidence to show the convincing relation between decline of fish population and overfishing in T. First, the exclusion of reason of pollution is unconvincing. Since water in the sea may move in or out from one place. The pollution of water more than 20 miles away may affect the quality of water less than 20 miles away from T. Or perhaps the fish mainly concentrate more than 20 miles away from T. The pollution may much likely to affect them severely. Moreover, the exclusion of pollution may not mean the reason must be overfishing. Other reasons which may induce the decline of fish should be considered. It is much possible that a large amount of fish move to other places because of the rising temperature or scanty of food source. To convince us that the decline of fish is due to the overfishing, the author should provide evidence that the fish caught is increasing when the total population of fish is declining whereas exclude other possible reasons of decline of fish.

Even if the relation between fish decline and overfishing is credible, considering the possible dissimilarity between two places, the availability of regulation in O may not effective in T. It is entirely possible that the fish population distribution may be dissimilar in two locations. if it is the case, the adoption will result in failure. Specifically speaking, it is much possible that the fish are mainly in the area 10 miles away from O whereas the fish in T are mainly in the area 20 miles away from T. If it is true, the ban may have little effect on the decline. Furthermore, the diversity with regard to the residents such as eating habits of residents and the execution in two places may affect the final results of decline. It is much possible that many fishers continue to catch fish because of the great demand of fish consumption and loose management as to the ban whereas the fishers in O stop to get fish because of strict ban and little demand of fish after the ban. If it is the case, the regulation may be useless in T. To convince us, the author should rule out these possible distinctions between two locations.

Finally, the conclusion is doubted since the protection of marine wildlife may not be effective with the ban in T . First, no evidence indicates hat the necessity of marine wildlife protection because the decline of marine wildlife is not concerned. Even if the marine wildlife is indeed decreasing, no fact demonstrates that the original reduction of wildlife was result from the decline of fish population. It is entirely possible that the decrease attributes to the overhunting on marine wildlife. Given that no ban on the marine wildlife is concerned in the regulation, people may continue to kill the marine wildlife at will without any consideration of punishment. To make the argument more compelling, the author should prove that the protection of marine wildlife is effective through promise the population of fish.

In conclusion, to well bolster the argument, the author should examine the relationship between the decline and overfishing. Furthermore, the author should make research to tell the fish population is mainly concentrating in the place less than 10 miles away from T . Finally, the author should provide evidence to show the effect on the marine wildlife from the new regulation.

[ 本帖最后由 timboy 于 2006-7-13 07:15 编辑 ]