argument131【加州阳光】第十次作业 拍的响亮~

benniUID: 2166321

------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.'

------提纲------
1、鱼数下降未必因为捕捞
2、俩地儿可比么？那地也未必是因为禁止捕捞才下降的不明显。
（读题的时间也放在限时里了，才找到两点…）

------正文------
In the newsletter, the speaker recommends that the government should abandon the present regulations and adopt those of Omni to restore Tria's fish populations and to protect other marine mammals in Tria. To support his conclusion, the author points out that: (1) the number of the fish in Tria’ water is decreasing (2) the declining of fish populations in Omni is not obvious after the regulation. However, close scrutiny of the evidence reveals that it lends little credence to the recommendation.

To begin with, the author attempts to establish a causal connection between two facts-declining fish population and the lacking ban about fishing. However, the speaker provides little specific data about the fishing situation so as to unwarrantedly reveal that fishing has put any threat to the fish population. Perhaps because of the sever pollution, few people fish in the Tria Island and if so, the ban of fishing would contribute little to the increasing of fish population. Moreover, although the regulations that ban dumping and offshore oil drilling within 20 miles of Tria has put into effect, the previous pollution, which might have caused epidemic diseases, will also impact the marine animals and hence the population of fish would certainly not stop declining in short period. In a word, without ruling out the details of the fishing situation in Tria, the argument would be highly doubtful.

In the second place, the arguer's conclusion is based on an assumption lacking legitimacy that the Tria and Omni are the same in each of the aspects. Nevertheless, the assumption is weak, because although there might be some points of comparison, there must be dissimilarities in several respects as well, such as the fishing situation, the pollution level, and the population of fish. It is entirely possible that the declining in fish population is actually not obvious in Omni before the regulations and after the regulations, the change is not as conspicuous as the speaker make us believe. What's more, it is perhaps that the major economic pillar in Tria is fishing industry. If so, the proposal ban of fishing would bog down the local economy and also result in sever unemployment. To sum up, the argument rests on an oversimplified analysis, which leads it suspecting

In conclusion, the recommendation is relied on some suspicious assumptions that make it unconvincing as it stands. To bolster the recommendation, the arguer should provide clear evidence that the declining in fish population in Tria area is rightly because of the overfishing. To better assess the recommendation, I also need to know the specific pollution and fishing condition before and after the execution of the ban in Omni.