argument131 oceanus4月作文小组3月25日第一次作业

oceanusUID：2283238

argument 第6篇




TOPIC: ARGUMENT131 - 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: 323          TIME: 0:26:40          DATE: 2007-3-25

By making a comparison of Tria Island, which regulations ban dumping and offshore oil drilling whthin 20 miles of Tria and fishing is not banned, with Omni Island, which regulations ban dumping, offshore oil drilling, and fishing within 10 miles of Omini, the author concluded that the decline in fish populations in Tria's waters is the result of overfishing, not popullution and 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.
The argument is problematic in several critical places.

First, the author assumes that the decline in fish populations in Tria's waters is due to population or overfishing, rather than other possible alternations. This may not be the case. Perhaps the decline in fish populations in Tria's waters is the result of the move or the climate. It is possible that the climate of Tria Island changes a lot, so the fish is not adapt to its weather. In short, without ruling other possible alternations, the author should not conclude that the decline in fish populations in Tria's waters is the result of population or overfishing.

Secondly, even if the decline in fish populations in Tria's waters is the result of overfishing or population, the author also can not say that it is the result of overfishing rather than population. In Tria Island, the regulations  ban dumping and offshore oil drilling within 20 miles of Tria, but in Omni Island, the regulation s ban dumping and offshore oil drilling without limit. So, it is possible that the decline in fish populations in Tria's waters is due to the population.

In sum, the argument is not convincing as it stands. To strength the argument the author should rule out other possible alternations and provide other evidences to improve that the decline in fish populations in Tria's waters is the result of overfishing rather than other alternations.

pishengUID：2169170

By making a comparison of（改为 between） Tria Island, which regulations ban dumping and offshore oil drilling whthin 20 miles of Tria and fishing is not banned, with (改为and)Omni Island, which regulations ban dumping, offshore oil drilling, and fishing within 10 miles of Omini, the author concluded(一般都用concludes) that the decline in fish populations in Tria's waters is the result of (results from) overfishing, not popullution and therefore, the best way to restore Tria's fish populations and to protect all of Tria's marine wildlife is to abandon our（their） regulations and adopt those of Omni.The argument is problematic in several critical places.
First, the author assumes that the decline in（of） fish populations in Tria's waters is due to population or overfishing, rather than other possible alternations(是想写alternatives吧). This may not be the case. Perhaps the decline in（of） fish populations in Tria's waters is the result of the move(表意不清，是鱼的move还是洋流的move) or the climate. It is possible that the climate of Tria Island changes a lot, so the fish is not adapt to its(the) weather. In short, without ruling (out
)other possible alternations, the author should not conclude that the decline in fish populations in Tria's waters is the result of population or overfishing.

是pollution.而不是population,一词之谬导致整个第三段的偏差，遗憾……
Secondly, even if the decline in fish populations in Tria's waters is the result of overfishing or population, the author also can not(cannot) say that it is the result of overfishing rather than population. In Tria Island, the regulations  ban dumping and offshore oil drilling within 20 miles of Tria, but in Omni Island, the regulation s ban dumping and offshore oil drilling without limit. So, it is possible that the decline in fish populations in Tria's waters is due to the population.
In sum, the argument is not convincing as it stands. To strength the argument the author should rule out other possible alternations and provide other evidences to improve that the decline in fish populations in Tria's waters is the result of overfishing rather than other alternations.

总体感觉内容还可以再加强，尤其论述部分，尽量写三个反驳处，当然也不是绝对的。只反驳两点的话，就更需要深入，多想几条作者没考虑到的可能性。
还是很有潜力的！一起加油！：）

[ 本帖最后由 pisheng 于 2007-3-26 14:32 编辑 ]

oceanusUID：2283238

谢谢pisheng的修改，非常感谢

pishengUID：2169170

呵呵~坚持就没有失败~
come on~