argument131 [勇往直前小组] 8.2

高加索UID：2246937

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 over fishing, 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."
字数：511          用时：00:30:00          日期：2007-8-4 15:17:58

In this argument, the arguer claims that to restore Tria's fish populations and to protect all of Tria's marine wildlife the best way is abandoning our regulations and adopting those of Omni. To verity the claim, the arguer makes a comparison and analysis between the regulations in Tria Island and Omni Island. The arguer also provides the fact that no significant decline in fish population is reported in Omni Island while there is decease of fish in Tria's waters. This argument suffers from several critical fallacies.

First of all, the arguer fails to convince us the assumption that the decline of fish population in Tria's waters is due to over fishing not pollution. The arguer bases the assumption upon the fact that the obvious difference between the regulations in two islands is that Tria's do not ban fishing which is considered as the main factor leads to the decline of fish. However, no evidence demonstrates that it is just this difference--banning of fishing, caused the different situation. Perhaps although the marine sanctuary in Tria Island is established, the regulations are not carried out very well in which case illegal dumping and offshore oil drilling still exists. To the contrast, maybe in Omni, powerful forces diminish the case of illegal actions defined in the regulations, therefore a better situation. It is also possible that other actions which threaten the marine mammals are not banned in either regulation; however, those actions seldom happen in Omni but make a considerable negative effect in the Tria's waters.

Secondly, even if above assumption is granted, it is still open to doubt that after the change the Tria's marine wildlife will be protected. Banning fishing has little to do with some spices. For example, the spices never be captured will not be influenced by the change in regulation. Moreover, since the problem of over fishing in Tria Island is serious, out of the marine sanctuary there must be also some condition of over fishing which may also lead to the decline of fish in Tria. Just follow and stimulate the methods in Omni may not solve the practical problem in Tria.

Last but not least, the arguer fails to take the negative influence of change into accounts. Although the regulation banning fishing is carried out well in Omni, it may not be feasible in Tria. Maybe the residents in Tria live on fishing, and many people work on the fishing ship. If the fishing is banned, widespread unemployment is unavoidable. Banning fishing could also lead to an increase in the price of fish which may lower the level of the people in other areas. When the policy is changed, the negative effect should not be ignored.

In sum, the argument is not reasonable as it stands, the arguer should provide more information to demonstrate the assumption. Meanwhile, the efficiency of the change in regulation for the protection of marine mammal should also be well reasoned. Additionally, only if the negative influence of the new regulation is taken into accounts, will the arguers’ claim be more reasonable.

这篇写得好恶心，不知道有什么错误~

woodmanUID：161906

In this argument, the arguer claims that to restoreTria's fish populations and to protect all of Tria's marine wildlife the bestway is abandoning our regulations and adopting those of Omni. To verity theclaim, the arguer makes a comparison and analysis between the regulations in Tria Islandand Omni Island. The arguer also provides thefact that no significant decline in fish population is reported in Omni Islandwhile there is decease of fish in Tria's waters. This argument suffers fromseveral critical fallacies.

First of all, the arguer fails to convince us theassumption that the decline of fish population in Tria's waters is due to overfishing not pollution. The arguer bases the assumption upon the fact that theobvious difference between the regulations in two islands is that Tria's do notban fishing which is considered as the main factor leads to the decline offish. However, no evidence demonstrates that it is just thisdifference--banning of fishing, caused the different situation. Perhapsalthough the marine sanctuary in Tria Island is established,the regulations are not carried out very well in which case illegal dumping andoffshore oil drilling still exists. To the contrast, maybe in Omni, powerfulforces diminish the case of illegal actions defined in the regulations,therefore a better situation. It is also possible that other actions whichthreaten the marine mammals are not banned in either regulation; however, thoseactions seldom happen in Omni but make a considerable negative effect in theTria's waters.

Secondly, even if above assumption is granted, it isstill open to doubt that after the change the Tria's marine wildlife will beprotected. Banning fishing has little to do with some spices. For example, thespices never be captured will not be influenced by the change in regulation.Moreover, since the problem of over fishing in Tria Islandis serious, out of the marine sanctuary there must be also some condition ofover fishing which may also lead to the decline of fish in Tria. Just followand stimulate the methods in Omni may not solve the practical problem in Tria.什么鱼捕捉不到呢？这个理由有点牵强

Last but not least, the arguer fails to take thenegative influence of change into accounts. Although the regulation banningfishing is carried out well in Omni, it may not be feasible in Tria. Maybe theresidents in Tria live on fishing, and many people work on the fishing ship. Ifthe fishing is banned, widespread unemployment is unavoidable. Banning fishingcould also lead to an increase in the price of fish which may lower the level of the people in other areas.(危害是什么) When the policy is changed, the negative effect should not be ignored.这个分论点没有错，但是有点发散了，我觉得整个论断主要的2点是T鱼数目减少的原因，两地的类比。整个argu应该紧抓这2个主要的逻辑错误，因为这是最明显的错误。个人的一些理解，权当参考，哈

In sum, the argument is not reasonable as it stands,the arguer should provide more information to demonstrate the assumption.Meanwhile, the efficiency of the change in regulation for the protection ofmarine mammal should also be well reasoned. Additionally, only if the negativeinfluence of the new regulation is taken into accounts, will the arguers’ claimbe more reasonable.