Argument131 ［勇往直前小组］ 作业 by269750640

269750640UID：2358012

131.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."

Tria岛的海洋生物禁猎区是用来保护某些海洋哺乳动物的。它禁止在Tria20英里以内倾倒废物和近海采油，但捕鱼并不禁止。当前Tria水域的很多种鱼类数量都在下降，这种现象被认为是污染造成的。相比之下，Omni岛的海洋生物禁猎区禁止倾倒废物、近海采油和在Omni10英里以内捕鱼，Omni没有上报任何鱼类数量的显著下降。显然，Tria水域鱼类数量的下降是过度捕鱼而不是污染造成的。因此，回复Tria鱼类数量和保护Tria所有海洋野生动物的最好办法就是废止我们的规定而采用Omni的规定。
In this argument ,the author conclude that 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. At first glance, the author's reasoning seems to be appealing ,while clearly examine the author's reasoning, we may find that it is unconvincing .The argument contains several facets  that are questionable.

  First of all, the author advocates that the decline of fish populations in Tria's waters is the result of over fishing. There are 3 evidences to support the opinion. Firstly, Tria Island's 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.
  Secondly, 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. We can see very clearly, the author's evidences are insufficient to support the conclusion.
    In the first evidence, the author concludes fish populations in Tria's waters are declining because of pollution, but there is no evidence to prove that just the arguer's assumption. The arguer have not take the evidence about the change of  water quality in Tria's waters .And although the quality of water have no problem there are still have other reasons to cause that, just like over fishing , natural disaster and endangered species.  
   In the second evidence, reports no significant decline in its fish populations can not represent there no population decline. Perhaps there are tiny decline in report, or it is possible the fact can not be report.
  Although the two evidences are correct and reasonable, they still can not prove that assumption. Because there is no evidence to show fishing in the T area lead to population decline, not only no evidence about the fisher number but also this population decline concurrent with the number of  fish catches are increasing. They have not any cause to effect relationship between that.
  In addition, suppose if all the evidence and conclusion are accurate, the author made another mistake .Tria Islan and Omni are two different area ,shoal species are not the same. Therefore, O's experience can not suitable to us. If the fishing within 10 miles of Omni are huge but within 10 miles of Tria have no fish at all, then the suggestion are valid. Maybe there is others solution, why they must stimulate the O's experience.  
  To sum up, the conclusion lacks of credibility .Regardless of who the author is, he or she has overlooked or chosen to ignore many aspects of his or her conclusion. To strengthen the conclusion ,the author should give more evidences about the above-mentioned possibilities.