argument131 这篇写得也不大爽..

phoenixlwUID: 2382912

题目：ARGUMENT 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."
字数：429          用时：0:30:00          日期：2007-9-2

The author asserts that the best way to restore the fish population of Tria (T) and protect all of T's marine wildlife is to abandon their existing regulations and adopt those of Omni (O). To support this assertion the author cites a fact that the regulations of O is more effective for a additional regulation banning fishing which T does not have. Besides, the author also offers the conditions on fish population in T and O. However, this assertion has several flaws, which render it wholly unpersuasive as it stands.

Firstly, the fact that no significant decline in O's fish population can not necessarily indicate the fishing ban within 10 miles of O is effective. However, the author might miss other possible factors which also serve to keep up the fish population in O. It is entirely possible that besides the regulation, the government also put many small fish to balance the decrease the decline in the number of fish. It is also possible that there are almost no factories and other industrial manufactories, and thus O might escapes to suffer from the pollution of waste. Though people fishing a lot, because of enormous number of fish, there is no decline. Without ruling out these two and other scenarios, the author cannot convince me that the fishing ban within 10 miles of O is greatly prevent O from a decline of number of fish.   

Secondly, the author unfairly assumes that the decline in fish populations in T's waters is the result of overfishing rather than pollution. Though no fishing ban, it is still highly possible fishing is a less important factor than pollution which serve to decrease the number of fish in T. Perhaps there are hundreds of factories in T because of the various and rich natural resources there, and thus a large amount of toxic waste makes the sea contaminated finally. Obviously, the regulations against the pollution are not enough to maintain the quality of the sea. Thus, considering this possible situation, the main cause of the decline of fish is still pollution.

Finally, even if the regulation that bans fishing within 10 miles of O is the main factor of the no significant decline in O's fish populations and decline in fish populations of T results from overfishing, still the author commits a fallacy of false analogy. However, the author fails to supply detailed information on the two islands, say size, location, and weather. Perhaps T is much larger than O, so regulations within only ten miles are too weak to effect. Thus, without this information, the author cannot reach his or her conclusion on the weak assumption that every conditions and characters of the two islands are totally the same.  

In sum, this assertion, which seems logical and well-organized at first, has several flaws within it. To bolster this assertion, the author should substantiate that fishing ban within 10 miles of O is truly effective and O's decline in fish populations of T results from overfishing. Furthermore, the author needs to prove that the same regulations will work effectively in T as well as in O.