argument131 <米国有米寒假作业 2.13号>

blackswitchUID: 2110679

131.marine sanctuary

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 O 区的鱼种未明显减少 归功于他们的规定
2 忽视O区和T区的差别
3 结论无根据


In this argument, the arguer intends to convince us that the best way to restore Tria’s fish population and protect all of Tria’s marine wildlife is to abandon their regulations and adopt those of Omni. To justify the argument, the arguer makes a comparison between Tria Island and Omni Island, drawing the conclusion that the decline in fish population in Tira’s waters is the result of over-fish, not pollution. However, as it stands, the argument is hardly convincing due to following critical fallacies.

In the first place, the arguer fails to consider the difference between Tria and Omin which would cause the regulation of Omin is not effective for Tira. For example, Perhaps a majority of residents in Tria live mainly depending on hunting fishing. In this case, if Tria adopt Omin’s regulation and ban fishing, the economic income of many residents would be greatly affected and this regulation is hard to be accepted by residents. Therefore, without fully taking into account these possibilities, the argument is lack of credibility.

In the second place, the arguer unfairly assumes that over-fishing is the cause of the declining fish population in Tria’s waters. Yet, the arguer provide no evident to substantiate it. Firstly, the arguer fails to inform us the overall output of fishing in Tria, rendering the possibility that the output of fishing is not high. In addition, the arguer ignores a host of other possible explanations. Perhaps a new factory was established this year which dumps a lot of waste to Tira’s water. In that case, it is highly possible that his garbage pollutes the river and cause the decline of population of fish in Tria. In addition,perhaps the climate in Tria has a drastically change this year which cause the water is not fit for fish living. In short, without being informed with the real cause of the declining fish population, we have right to doubt that any steps may not be effective.

The last but not least,the arguer fails to point out among the regulations adopted by Omni Island which one is actual responsible for the fact that there is no significant fish population decline. It is quite possible that dumping rather than other steps adopted by the Omni Island is responsible for the fact that there is not significant decline in fish populations. Further, even if assuming the steps of Omni Island is effective in protecting fishes, the same steps do not necessarily protect all the Tria's marine wildlife, taking into account that fish is only one type of marine wildlife.

To sum up, the argument is logically unacceptable due to the above fallacies. To strengthen the argument, the arguer must provide more clear evidence that the actual reason for the decline population of fish in Mino.

holdingUID: 2285054

In this argument, the arguer intends to convince us that the best way to restore Tria’s fish population and protect all of Tria’s marine wildlife is to abandon their regulations and adopt those of Omni. To justify the argument, the arguer makes a comparison between Tria Island and Omni Island, drawing the conclusion that the decline in fish population in Tira’s ( Tria这个词多次在文中拼错) waters is the result of over-fish, not pollution. However, as it stands, the argument is hardly convincing due to following critical fallacies. 开头好

In the first place, the arguer fails to consider the difference between Tria and Omin ( Omni 这个词也是) which would cause the regulation of Omin is not effective for (to) Tira. For example, Perhaps a majority of residents in Tria live mainly depending on hunting fishing. In this case, if Tria adopt Omin’s regulation and ban fishing, the economic income of many residents would be greatly affected and this regulation is hard to be accepted by residents. Therefore, without fully taking into account these possibilities, the argument is lack of credibility.

In the second place, the arguer unfairly assumes that over-fishing is the cause of the declining fish population in Tria’s waters. Yet, the arguer provide no evident (evidence) to substantiate it. Firstly, the arguer fails to inform us the overall output of fishing in Tria, rendering the possibility that the output of fishing is not high. In addition, the arguer ignores a host of other possible explanations. Perhaps a new factory was established this year which dumps a lot of waste to Tira’s water. In that case, it is highly possible that his garbage pollutes the river and cause (causes) the decline of population of fish in Tria. In addition, perhaps the climate in Tria has a drastically change this year which cause the water is not fit for fish living. In short, without being informed with the real cause of the declining fish population, we have right to doubt that any steps may not be effective.

The last but not least (这个开头自从上了孙远作文后都被用烂了，千万别用了啊) , the arguer fails to point out among the regulations adopted by Omni Island which one is actual responsible for the fact that there is no significant fish population decline. It is quite possible that dumping rather than other steps adopted by the Omni Island is responsible for the fact that there is not significant decline in fish populations. Further, even if assuming the steps of Omni Island is effective in protecting fishes, the same steps do not necessarily protect all the Tria's marine wildlife, taking into account that fish is only one type of marine wildlife.

To sum up, the argument is logically unacceptable due to the above fallacies. To strengthen the argument, the arguer must provide more clear evidence that the actual reason for the decline population of fish in Mino.