Argument131

DesVioletUID: 2343894

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: 563          TIME: 0:55:00          DATE: 2007-6-18

In this argument, the arguer attributes the decline in fish population in Tria’s water to overfishing rather than pollution, based on the comparison between the marine sanctuary of Tria and Omni, and thus suggesting Tria should adopt the policies of Omni. Well-grounded reasoning it may seem, however, close scrutiny reveals that the argument suffers from several fallacies, and is therefore unconvincing.

To begin with, the author fails to rule out the possibility that it is pollution that caused the fish populations in Tria’s water to decline. He seems to have deduced that pollution is not even one of the reasons from the comparison between Tria and Omni, where Omni adopts a sanctuary less strict than Tria’s; this, however, lends little support to that assumption. The argument actually provides no information concerning the original environmental conditions in either place, thus it is entirely possible that the pollution level in Omni was low even before any regulation was enforced. Also possible is that the Island of Omni locates in some quick-water place, where the water flows takes away most of the rubbish and oil, while for Tria contaminated flow only brings more waste matters that accumulates in its area. Either case, then, would call on the necessity to adopt even more strict sanctuary in Tria, and hence disprove the arguer’s assumption.  

Conceded that pollution is not the reason of declining fish populations in Tria, the arguer’s assumption that the decline results from overfishing is still unwarranted. No information is provided in the argument regarding fishing conditions in Tria, and now we might question whether fishing exist in Tria’s water at all in the first place. Assuming that fishery is originally unthrifty in Tria, a sanctuary of banning is rendered needless. Besides, there are alternatives that might explain the decrease, for example, changing direction of ocean current that drives away the fish populations originally resided in Tria’s water, or introduction of the fish’s natural preyers into the water. Unless the arguer can prove that overfishing actually is the reason why fish populations decrease, and that bans of fishing is necessary in Tria, the conclusions drawn is unconvincing.

Last but not the least, even if the arguer does find the right cause of the decline of fish populations in Tria's waters, he commits an either-or fallacy in assuming that the only possible solutions to the problem are the marine sanctuaries of Tria and Omni. There might be other methods to better protect the fish populations in Tria, such as regulations that address at decrease the number of visitors to the coast and the near ocean, or both bans on dumping and oil drilling within 20 miles, and those on fishing. Indeed, it is false analogous to suggest that abandoning the current regulations and adopting those of Omni will be of effective protection for the fish populations in Tria to begin with, for the reason that the varies differences in both environmental and cultural conditions between the two islands might limit the efficiency of the same sanctuary on Tria.

To sum up, the argument is groundless as it stands. To substantiate the conclusion, the arguer needs to provide more evidence about the quantity of fishing activities in Tria's water as well as information about the water quality there. The arguer should also provide evidence to show the comparability between Omni and Tria's which may determine the effectiveness of adopting similar regulations.

最後の使徒UID: 2257608

In this argument, the arguer attributes the decline in fish population in Tria’s water to overfishing rather than pollution, based on the comparison between the marine sanctuary of Tria and Omni, and thus suggesting Tria should adopt the policies of Omni. Well-grounded reasoning it may seem, however, close scrutiny reveals that the argument suffers from several fallacies, and is therefore unconvincing.

To begin with, the author fails to rule out the possibility that it is pollution that caused the fish populations in Tria’s water to decline. He seems to have deduced that pollution is not even one of the reasons from the comparison between Tria and Omni, where Omni adopts a sanctuary less strict than Tria’s （这里的叙述太笼统了，作者怎么用了这个比较？怎么得出结论？既然要指出作者这里出了问题就应该先把作者的逻辑理清楚，方便之后攻击，而不是单纯的把题目内容重复一下）; this, however, lends little support to that assumption. The argument actually provides no information concerning the original environmental conditions in either place, thus it is entirely possible that the pollution level in Omni was low even before any regulation was enforced. Also possible is that the Island of Omni locates in some quick-water place, where the water flows takes away most of the rubbish and oil, while for Tria contaminated flow only brings more waste matters that accumulates in its area（这两个可能性都举得都很细节化，之前缺乏比较概括的过度，比如需要考虑什么information，为什么要考虑这些information，有了这些再举出它因会比较合理）. Either case, then, would call on the necessity to adopt even more strict sanctuary in Tria, and hence disprove the arguer’s assumption. （感觉这一段的论证在指出作者的错误时太跳跃了，既没说作者哪错了也没说为什么错了，就很机械的一句not enough information，紧接着就来它因，这种论证很脆弱，因为你没有足够的证据说它因就一定存在，至少也要说明由于没有信息所以我们不知道这两地有没有可比性所以比较它们对得出结论没有支持力吧）

Conceded that pollution is not the reason of declining fish populations in Tria, the arguer’s assumption that the decline results from overfishing is still unwarranted. No information is provided in the argument regarding fishing conditions in Tria, and now we might question whether fishing exist in Tria’s water at all in the first place. Assuming that fishery is originally unthrifty in Tria, a sanctuary of banning is rendered needless.（同样道理这个assume也没有逻辑来源，没有渔业作者会提这个么？就算没有你也没证据证明没有，此时换个角度从题目本身作者的叙述来提出错误会比较合理，比如先说作者只考虑了两种可能性，这个二选一的情况是没有根据的，blahblahblah） Besides, there are alternatives that might explain the decrease, for example, changing direction of ocean current that drives away the fish populations originally resided in Tria’s water, or introduction of the fish’s natural preyers into the water. Unless the arguer can prove that overfishing actually is the reason why fish populations decrease, and that bans of fishing is necessary in Tria, the conclusions drawn is unconvincing.（感觉最后一句有点多余，跟主题句一个意思，这里应该细节点，或者说逻辑上更接近论据，即要求作者调查T渔业的情况并确认它们如何影响鱼的数量，而不是把主题句换个法重复一下）

Last but not the least, even if the arguer does find the right cause of the decline of fish populations in Tria's waters, he commits an either-or fallacy in assuming that the only possible solutions to the problem are the marine sanctuaries of Tria and Omni. There might be other methods to better protect the fish populations in Tria, such as regulations that address at decrease the number of visitors to the coast and the near ocean, or both bans on dumping and oil drilling within 20 miles, and those on fishing.（why are they better?） Indeed, it is false analogous to suggest that abandoning the current regulations and adopting those of Omni will be of effective protection for the fish populations in Tria to begin with, for the reason that the varies differences in both environmental and cultural conditions between the two islands might limit the efficiency of the same sanctuary on Tria(这里可以照应下前面的论证，作者在分析原因和解决方案上都草率推广了，是同一种错误类型但不是同一个错误，所以不用担心重复，论证的时候小心点论据就行了). （有关other solution的使用方法建议看下我之前改过的argument2  http://bbs.gter.ce.cn/bbs/viewthread.php?tid=685869&pid=1770382955&page=1&extra=page%3D1#pid1770382955）

To sum up, the argument is groundless as it stands. To substantiate the conclusion, the arguer needs to provide more evidence about the quantity of fishing activities in Tria's water as well as information about the water quality there. The arguer should also provide evidence to show the comparability between Omni and Tria's which may determine the effectiveness of adopting similar regulations.

总评：感觉LZ的毛病和ILOVEISSUE有段时间的ARGUMENT很象，就是结构过于简单，论证手法单调，除了possibility还是possibility，反正时间还多，不妨尝试下新的论证手法，类比、反证、比喻、引用常识等等，可以让文章更出彩，现在的目标要定到outstanding了，不要只追求strong

[ 本帖最后由 lastangel 于 2007-6-20 23:16 编辑 ]

DesVioletUID: 2343894

谢谢版主~
自己又看了一遍发现好多地方逻辑混乱.. ><
难为斑竹能看完了..

论证手法的问题..
我去找ILOVEISSUE斑竹后期作品来学习 会有用不? 还是看北美更好呢? :confused: :confused: :confused:

iq28UID: 2152875

issue的后期的可以;d:

反正天使的是不能学:rolleyes: ;d:

还有严重同意天使的那一句, 现在strong已经不行了,因为大家都strong了...

ntmlgszUID: 2235666

原帖由 iq28 于 2007-6-23 13:38 发表


反正天使的是不能学:rolleyes: ;d:

.

为什么？:confused:

iq28UID: 2152875

原帖由 ntmlgsz 于 2007-6-23 13:42 发表


为什么？:confused:

我们是人类啊;d:

我还有一段时间专门看使徒文章呢

尝试之后发现学不来~~

issue的风格还算很正统的那种,跟杜甫差不多

使徒的风格常人很难学的,就是李白了;d:

pippo1983UID: 172110

而且字数太多。。经常650+。。打死也打不完这么多字。。。。:mad :mad :mad

DesVioletUID: 2343894

天使的确是天使... 早晨看了他一篇issue: 44min 883words.. >< 神啊.. 赐我个锐角吧..
而且天使的argu没有固定的模式 模仿不来.. |||
还是ISSUE大人的比较有参考价值 ;d: ;d:

DesVioletUID: 2343894

In this argument, the arguer attributes the decline in fish population in Tria's water to overfishing rather than pollution, based on the comparison between the marine sanctuary of Tria and Omni, and thus suggesting Tria should adopt the policies of Omni. Well-grounded reasoning it may seem; however, close scrutiny reveals that the argument suffers from several fallacies, and is therefore unconvincing.

To begin with, the author fails to rule out the possibility that it is pollution that caused the fish populations in Tria's water to decline. He seems to have deduced that pollution is not even one of the reasons from the comparison between Tria and Omni, where Omni adopts a sanctuary of less strict bans on waste matter but more strict on fishing than Tria's; this fact, however, lends little support to his assumption. The argument actually provides no information concerning the original environmental conditions in either place, thus the comparison between the two is incomplete. For example, if the pollution level in Omni was low even before any regulation was enforced, then the a more strict sanctuary is obviously useless. Also possible is that the Island of Omni locates in some quick-water place, where the water flows takes away most of the rubbish and oil, while for Tria contaminated flow only brings more waste matters that accumulates in its area. Either case, then, would call on the necessity to adopt even more strict sanctuary in Tria, and hence disprove the arguer's assumption.  

Conceded that pollution is not the reason of declining fish populations in Tria, the arguer's assumption that the decline results from overfishing is still unwarranted. No information is provided in the argument regarding fishing conditions in Tria, and now we might question whether fishing exist in Tria's water at all in the first place. Assuming that fishery is originally unthrifty in Tria, a sanctuary of banning is rendered needless. Besides, there are alternatives that might explain the decrease, for example, changing direction of ocean current that drives away the fish populations originally resided in Tria's water, or introduction of the fish's natural preyers into the water. Unless the arguer can prove that overfishing actually is the reason why fish populations decrease, and that bans of fishing is necessary in Tria, the conclusions drawn is unconvincing. (晚上回来再改.. 睡个觉考试去了～)

Last but not the least, even if the arguer does find the right cause of the decline of fish populations in Tria's waters, he commits an either-or fallacy in assuming that the only possible solutions to the problem are the marine sanctuaries of Tria and Omni. There might be other, and perhaps more effective, methods to protect the fish populations in Tria, such as regulations that address at decrease the number of visitors to the coast and the near ocean, or both bans on dumping and oil drilling within 20 miles, and those on fishing, so that the bad effects of both wasting matter pollution and overfishing can be reduced to the minimun. Indeed, it is false analogous to suggest that abandoning the current regulations and adopting those of Omni will be of effective protection for the fish populations in Tria to begin with, for the reason that the varies differences in both environmental and cultural conditions between the two islands might limit the efficiency of the same sanctuary on Tria. <= 一个小问题：这个说的是错误类比，在TS里面没有提到，放在这里合不合适呢？需不需要在TS里面加上？就是说如果打算一段针对一个对象而不是一个错误的话，TS里面还要不要详细的指出作者的错误呢？

To sum up, the argument is groundless as it stands. To substantiate the conclusion, the arguer needs to provide more evidence about the quantity of fishing activities in Tria's water as well as information about the water quality there. The arguer should also provide evidence to show the comparability between Omni and Tria's which may determine the effectiveness of adopting similar regulations.

ILOVEISSUEUID: 2300195

:$

DesVioletUID: 2343894

问题问题~
牛斑斑回答一下下啦~