Argument131 勇往直前小组第六次作业 bynashiong

xiongnashiongUID：2359406

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: 432          TIME: 上午 12:29:45          DATE: 2007-8-3

By citing the facts in above argument , the arguer claims that the best way to restroe Tris's fish populations and to protet all of Tria's marine wildlife is to abandon regulations and adopt regulations of Omin . the deduction seems reasonable at first glance, however , it suffers some fallacies after close scrutiny .
First of all ,judging from the comparision of the variation of fish amount and according regulations in Tria and Omni ,the arguer concludes that overfishing ,not pollution ,results in the difference .however ,the aruger ignores some other possibilities ,first .no proof is provided to rule out one possibility that fishing in Omni out the range of 10 miles will play a little role in fish decline .maybe fishing usually takes place out 10 miles' range offshore, if so ,ban the fishing within 10 miles would make little sense to prevent fish from decline .moreover , T's regulation points out that drill oil within 20 miles is banned while Omni ban drilling oil at all , it is very possible that although drilling oil in T is 20 miles away from shore , pollution of drilling project will flow into the location near shore ,which would result in the decline of fish number ,in short ,aruger could not rule out that pollution may be responsable for fish's decline in T . in addition ,more factors could contribute to the decline of fish ,not just dumping ,pollution,and fishing . for example , the climate in T might be very terrible in that time , while it be fine in O . and fish would go to warmer location to avoid cold ,in this situation , maybe the authentic reason for fish decline could involve the temperature rather than fishing or pollution .
Secondly ,even overate fishing could contribute to the decline of fish amount in T, the best way may not involve the similar regulation like Omni . first , there is no evidence to indicate that fish in T's marine usually appear within 10 miles,perhaps fish in T usually appears within 20 miles ,since diverse geography , temperature or species , then if just ban the fishing within 10 miles would make little sense to prevent it from decreasing . and even if they usually live within 10 mile offshore, while the arguer do not provide any other approach to fish protecting , we could not assert baning is the most appropriate way for restoring .
In conclsion ,only the arguer could provide more evidences to rule out the fallcies listed above , the conclsion could be peruasive.

sweetbettyUID：2359460

By citing the facts in above argument , the arguer claims that the best way to restroe Tris's fish populations and to protet all of Tria's marine wildlife is to abandon regulations and adopt regulations of Omin . the deduction seems reasonable at first glance, however , it suffers some fallacies after close scrutiny .
First of all ,judging from the comparision of the variation of fish amount and according regulations in Tria and Omni ,the arguer concludes that overfishing ,not pollution ,results in the difference .however ,the aruger ignores some other possibilities ,first .no proof is provided to rule out one possibility that fishing in Omni out the range of 10 miles will play a little role in fish decline .maybe fishing usually takes place out 10 miles' range offshore, if so ,ban the fishing within 10 miles would make little sense to prevent fish from decline(这点很好 我都还没想到呢 学习～～) .moreover , T's regulation points out that drill oil within 20 miles is banned while Omni ban drilling oil at all , it is very possible that although drilling oil in T is 20 miles away from shore , pollution of drilling project will flow into the location near shore ,which would result in the decline of fish number ,in short ,（the）aruger could not rule out that pollution may be responsable for fish's decline in T . in addition ,more factors could contribute to the decline of fish ,not just dumping ,pollution,and fishing . for example , the climate in T might be very terrible in that time , while it be fine in O . and fish would go to warmer location to avoid cold ,in this situation , maybe the authentic reason for fish decline could involve the temperature rather than fishing or pollution .
Secondly ,even overate fishing could contribute to the decline of fish amount in T, the best way may not involve the similar regulation like Omni . first , there is no evidence to indicate that fish in T's marine usually appear within 10 miles,perhaps fish in T usually appears within 20 miles ,since diverse geography , temperature or species , then if just ban the fishing within 10 miles would make little sense to prevent it from decreasing . and even if they usually live within 10 mile offshore, while the arguer do not provide any other approach to fish protecting , we could not assert baning is the most appropriate way for restoring .
In conclsion ,only the arguer could provide more evidences to rule out the fallcies listed above , the conclsion could be peruasive.

写的理由都很好 但是注意大小写 还有有些地方有些小错误 比如说加定冠词 还有我不知道fish decline 可不可以用 但是我总觉得decline 应该针对的是number 还有很多拼写错误 我就不一一挑出了

linshaoUID：2338229

By citing the facts in above argument , the arguer claims that the best way to restore Tris's fish populations and to protect all of Tria's marine wildlife is to abandon regulations and adopt regulations of Omin . the deduction seems reasonable at first glance, however , it suffers some fallacies after close scrutiny .nashing的模版似乎已经定型了啊！祝贺！First of all ,judging from the comparison of the variation of fish amount and according regulations in Tria and Omni ,the arguer concludes that overfishing ,not pollution ,results in the difference .however ,the aruger ignores some other possibilities ,first .no proof is provided to rule out one possibility that fishing in Omni out the range of 10 miles will play a little role in fish decline .maybe fishing usually takes place out 10 miles' range offshore, if so ,ban the fishing within 10 miles would make little sense to prevent fish from decline .moreover , T's regulation points out that drill oil within 20 miles is banned while Omni ban drilling oil at all , it is very possible that although drilling oil in T is 20 miles away from shore , pollution of drilling project will flow into the location near shore ,which would result in the decline of fish number ,in short ,aruger could not rule out that pollution may be responsable for fish's decline in T . in addition ,more factors could contribute to the decline of fish ,not just dumping ,pollution,and fishing . for example , the climate in T might be very terrible in that time , while it be fine in O . and fish would go to warmer location to avoid cold ,in this situation , maybe the authentic reason for fish decline could involve the temperature rather than fishing or pollution .这段好长呵，其实可以分开为两段的啊，一段overfishing，一段pollution，这样整体结构挥会很多的。关于overfishing部分论证的不是很充分，只说了岛10里内鱼少，没有排出overfishing的可能性。
Secondly ,even overate fishing could contribute to the decline of fish amount in T, the best way may not involve the similar regulation like Omni . first , there is no evidence to indicate that fish in T's marine usually appear within 10 miles,perhaps fish in T usually appears within 20 miles ,since diverse geography , temperature or species , then if just ban the fishing within 10 miles would make little sense to prevent it from decreasing . and even if they usually live within 10 mile offshore, while the arguer do not provide any other approach to fish protecting , we could not assert baning is the most appropriate way for restoring .这点不够有力，只是批驳采用O岛的制度不是最好的，但是没有提出更好的办法，缺少说服力。
In conclsion ,only the arguer could provide more evidences to rule out the fallcies listed above , the conclsion could be peruasive.

Nashing的A已经没什么问题了，只是结构上再把握好点就更加完美了。