argument131 【勇往直前】

nornsUID：2325187

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: 517          TIME: 00:30:00          DATE: 2007-8-5 12:40:05

By an analogy between Tria and Omni, the author stated that the main reason for the decline of fish in Tria is not pollution and we should adopt the regulations the same as that of Omni. However, the author failed to provide enough information to convince the similarity between the two distinctions and the conclusion based on this is unpersuasive.

Firstly the author ignores the factor of time. If, for example, the regulations is set several years ago and the , because the decline only happened recently, can we relate the cause of decline to the regulation itself? Based on the given information we are not reasonable to assert that the decline of fish has nothing to do with the pollution.

Furthermore, even if we ignore the difference that might caused by time, the author’s statements is based on false analogy.  The distinction between the two areas might rend the conclusion from convincible. Firstly, the difference in population of fish of the two area may have no relation. The author offered no evidence to exclude the effect of pollution. It is entirely possible that recently a new factory was pouring toxic effluvia in to the water of Trisa while in Omni there were no similar conditions, so that the pollution caused the decline of fish in Trisa but in Omni the population remained unchanged. Even if we exclude the factor of pollution, we can not state that fishing is the main reason of the decline of fish, maybe in Omni there are more people like fishing so that the government has to make such regulations but in Trisa there are few people like this sports and the banning of fishing within 10 miles is even not necessary. Besides, the decline of the fish might due to a sudden change in the temperature, or there are more of its enemies prey this kind of fish this year. However, the author failed to exclude these possibilities. Therefore, before relating the phenomenon of this two districts to draw the conclusion, the author should give more information.
Finally, even if we admit that the decline of fish is due to the regulation, the suggestion that we should fully adopt the regulation in Omni is dubious. Firstly, as to the banning of fishing, even if these restrictions in Omni take effect, we are not sure whether they can work equal effectively in Trisa. If, for example, there are far more people loving fishing in Trisa. Then maybe the same regulation of fishing as in Omni can not effective save the fish, the banning should be stricter. Another dubious suggestion is about the banning of dumping and oil drilling. Even if we admit the decline of fish is due to fishing, the author ignore the difference between the wastes and oil drilling. Perhaps there are plenty of oil in Trisa and Trisa is a much bigger city than Omni, if so, the banning of drilling and dumping might affect the population of fish more im Trisa than in Omni. And the suggestion is unpersuasive.

In sum, the author failed to make the conclusion persuasive. To strengthen it, he should provide for information to prove the similarity between the two districts.

nornsUID：2325187

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: 517          TIME: 00:30:00          DATE: 2007-8-5 12:40:05

By an analogy between Tria and Omni, the author stated that the main reason for the decline of fish in Tria is not pollution and we should adopt the regulations the same as that of Omni. However, the author failed to provide enough information to convince the similarity between the two distinctions and the conclusion based on this is unpersuasive.

Firstly the author ignores the factor of time. If, for example, the regulations is set several years ago, because the decline only happened recently, can we relate the cause of decline to the regulation itself? It this is true there can be no cause and effect relationship between the decline of fish and the banning of fishing. Based on the given information we are not reasonable to assert that the decline of fish has nothing to do with the pollution.

Furthermore, even if we ignore the difference that might caused by time, the author’s statements is based on false analogy.  The distinction between the two areas might rend the conclusion from convincible. Firstly, the difference in population of fish of the two area may have no relation. 这个地方不切题The author offered no evidence to exclude the effect of pollution. Although the banning of dumping and offshore drilling in Trisa is much further than Omni. It is entirely possible that recently a new factory was pouring toxic effluvia in to the water of Trisa while in Omni there were no factories and the wastes is domestic garbage, so that the pollution caused the decline of fish in Trisa but in Omni the population remained unchanged. Secondly, even if we exclude the factor of pollution, we can not state that fishing is the main reason of the decline of fish. Maybe in Omni there are much more people like fishing so that the government has to make such regulations but in Trisa there are few people like this sports and the banning of fishing within 10 miles is even not necessary. Thirdly, the author cannot rule out other possibilities. The decline of the fish in Trisa might due to a sudden change in the temperature locally, and the fish that can no adapt to it will die, which is the main cause of the decline. or there are more of its enemies prey this kind of fish this year. We know that the distortion of sea wave can cause some changes in the habits of fish, they might move to an unknown place in groups.  It is entire possible that certain enemies of this fish might migrate to the seashores of Trisa more than ever.If so, the fish population will decline sharply. However, the author failed to exclude these possibilities. Therefore, before relating the phenomenon of this two districts to draw the conclusion, the author should give more information.
Finally, even if we admit that the decline of fish is due to the regulation, the suggestion that we should fully adopt the regulation in Omni is dubious. Firstly, as to the banning of fishing, even if these restrictions in Omni take effect, we are not sure whether they can work equal effectively in Trisa. If, for example, there are far more people loving fishing in Trisa. Then maybe the same regulation of fishing as in Omni can not effective save the fish, the banning should be stricter. Another dubious suggestion is about the banning of dumping and oil drilling. Even if we admit the decline of fish is due to fishing, the author ignore the difference between the wastes and oil drilling. Perhaps there are plenty of oil in Trisa and Trisa is a much bigger city than Omni, if so, the banning of drilling and dumping might affect the population of fish more im Trisa than in Omni.We cannot fully adapt the regulations according to the standards of Omni. And the suggestion is unpersuasive.

In sum, the author failed to make the conclusion persuasive. To strengthen it, he should provide for information to prove the similarity between the two districts.

中间一个层次还是太凌乱了 自己给自己鼓劲！！！！

反例前有总括－错因。 然后小分析一下，证据不足（有时后可以不分析） 每个具体反例如果有常识背景就先引入 这样可以增强说服力
最后归结到结论   

加油～～～～～～～～