Argument131 [Victors小组]自由习作

njuzhshaoUID: 2258118

题目：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."


The argument though well-presented, fails to demonstrate the rational correlation between overfishing in Tria Island and the declination of fish population there. Several logical flaws exists in author's reasoning.

Both Tria Island and Omni Island are under the prohibition of dumping and offshore oil drilling. Basis on this fact, the author put aside the possibility that the pollution contributes to the declination of the fish population. However, prohibitions are only prohibitions. Serious pollutions are of no guarantee to never have happened, such as leaking oil from ships, and illegal dumpling of factory waste. Both of them are great disasters on the living conditions of both fish and marine sanctuary: fish may die in groups and ecology can be overall ruined. Once they happen, even when heavy punishment is carried upon the doers, the ecology cannot recovery easily and neither can population return to the formal level in a short time. Neglect to the pollution factor lies as a weakness in author's deduction.

Will a stricter ban for fishing in Tria Island surely save Tria? Though Omni keeps its fish population in this way, how much it can benefit Tria leaves arguable. The environment in these two areas may be completely different; this will make the analogy a bit misleading: Omni’s dominated species of fish may take Omni a place for reproducing and growing. Overfishing nearby the island can destroy the reproducing chain of the specie and then cause a sharp declination of population, while Tria is free of this danger. There is another chance that both the islands lie far away off the coastline and surrounded by sea. In the case, 10 miles a scale in such a small area that fishing there cannot cause even trivial influence in the population of fish: immigration from nearby water can easily make up for that. Thus the fishing ban plays a trivial role. On both these possible conditions, the act will not perfectly work. Better illustration of the ecology condition helps a more persuasive reasoning.

Can an act good for fish population recovery yield a similar effect in marine mammals’ protection? Commonsense tells us that differences exist in processes and methods of the two; however, the argument fails to distinguish them when come to the ultimate conclusion. Though some of the marine mammals prey on fishes, and therefore rising population of fish may merit them, others may take fish as a competitor, or even predator. 'Best way to protect all' sounds more ideal than practical.

To sum up, whether lack of a '10-miles-fishing-ban' lies as the key factor threatening Tria's fish cannot be clearly asserted with merely this argument. The author also fails to justify the rationality of copying the Omni's instance of managing. What is more, determination of what to do to help to protect marine mammals, for no actual study is shown by author has an even longer way to go.


[ 本帖最后由 njuzhshao 于 2007-7-28 22:19 编辑 ]

nqjiuUID: 2357309

The argument though well-presented, fails to demonstrate the rational correlation between overfishing in Tria Island and the declination of fish population there. Several logical flaws exists in author's reasoning.(第一句写得不错，直入主题。rational correlation 作者应该认为是causal correlation, rational也行？另外就是文中指出的是no ban on fishing, overfishing 是否是一个事实本来就值得怀疑。  第二句个人感觉没什么用，太形式了，无实质内容。另外有一点: 首段只是说correlation，而正文只有第一段论证这个，2，3段是另外的问题，这样组织是不是有点乱？当然，A开头要不要有thesis我现在也有点晕，你自己看着办吧，呵呵。）

Both Tria Island and Omni Island are under the prohibition of dumping and offshore oil drilling.（没有ts阿，范文虽然很飘逸，只有很少是以陈述性与句开头的，大概没有疑问句开头的吧，一般都会首先说明自己的观点或立场，而且这一段前两句可以合成一句来。这个问题仍有待商榷。） Basis on this fact, the author put aside the possibility that the pollution contributes to the declination of the fish population. However, prohibitions are only prohibitions. Serious pollutions are of no guarantee to have happened, such as leaking oil from ships, and illegal dumpling of factory waste, both great disasters on the living conditions of both fish and marine sanctuary: fish may die in groups and ecology can be overall ruined.（论证很充分，有实际例子，赞）（好多both，读起来有点晕） Once they happen, even when heavy punishment is carried upon the doers, the ecology cannot recovery easily and neither can population return to the formal level in a short time. Neglect to the pollution factor lies as a weakness in author's deduction.（这一段论证不错，declining的原因不能忽略pollution)

Will a stricter ban for fishing in Tria Island surely save Tria? Though Omni keeps its fish population in this way, how much it can benefit Tria leaves arguable. The environment in these two areas may be completely different; this will make the analogy a bit misleading: Omni’s dominated species of fish may take Omni a place for reproducing and growing. Overfishing nearby the island can destroy the reproducing chain of the specie and then cause a sharp declination of population, while Tria is free of this danger. There is another chance that both the islands lie far away off the coastline and surrounded by sea. In the case, 10 miles a scale in such a small area that fishing there cannot cause even trivial influence in the population of fish: immigration from nearby water can easily make up for that. Thus the fishing ban plays a trivial role. On both these possible conditions, the act will not perfectly work. Better illustration of the ecology condition helps a more persuasive reasoning.（作者的观点是adopt the regulation of Omni is the best way to restore Tria's fish, 其中包括ban fishing, 你在这提出 ban的影响不清楚。仔细体会下面例证的两个例子，实质都是overfishing不能退出declining of fish,然后推出ban是没有意义的。还是那个问题，overfish是假设！  ）

Can an act good for fish population recovery yield a similar effect in marine mammals’ protection? Commonsense tells us that differences exist in processes and methods of the two; however, the argument fails to distinguish them when come to the ultimate conclusion. Though some of the marine mammals prey on fishes, and therefore rising population of fish may merit them, others may take fish as a competitor, or even predator. 'Best way to protect all' sounds more ideal than practical.（论证不如前两段深入了吧，others may take fish as a competitor, or even predator到这就结束了）

To sum up, whether lack of a '10-miles-fishing-ban' lies as the key factor threatening Tria's fish cannot be clearly asserted with merely this argument. The author also fails to justify the rationality of copying the Omni's instance of managing. What is more, determination of what to do to help to protect marine mammals, for no actual study is shown by author has an even longer way to go（determination ... has an even longer way to go? 什么意思？）.