Argument131 [SPRING小组] 第1次作业

machelleUID: 2348066

字数：434

The author suggests that Tria should abandon its regulations and adopt those of Omni in order to restore Tria’s fish populations and to protect all of Tria’s marine wildlife. The author points out that currently fish populations in Tria’s water are declining whereas Omni reports no significant decline.He also cites that the decline is the result of overfishing. This arguments contains several logical flaw ,which render it unconvincing .

First , the author assumes unfairly that the decline of fish population in Tria is due to overfishing. The author provides no evidence about the pollution circumstance in Tria’s water. It is entirely possible that currently climate in Tria is affected by “greenhouse” and the oxygen flow out from the water so that the fish could not get enough oxygen and die. Also perhaps an ship with oil passing by Tria were leaking and the polluted water cause the death of the fish. Without rolling out these possibilities , the author can not make an conclusion that the decline of fish population is contributed to overfishing.

Second, the author provides no information that what accomplishment we have achieved since established the regulations in Tria. Perhaps these regulations did help protect certain marine mammals and then we should consist on adopting them instead of abandoning them. Besides, the purpose of setting up these regulations is to protect marine mammals while not protect fish. Abandoning them is not the key points to increase the population of the fish .

Third, the fact the regulations set by Omni is helpful to increase the population of the fish is open to doubt. It is possibly that the report hides some facts and makes up the numbers . Without more information the author can not convince me that Omni’ s regulations is worth to adopt on the basis of uncompleted report. Even if Omni did do a good job due to these regulations. Are they suitable to Tria too? Common Sense informs me that water conditions , locations and climate would affect the populations of fish .Perhaps the people in Omni possess all high quality and wiling to obey them while Tria serve to opposite. Without enough information about the two cities , the author’s suggestion is unreliable.

In sum ,the suggestion that Tria should abandon their regulations and adopts Omni’s regulations to restores Tria’s fish population and protect all of Tria’s marine wildlife is unpersuasive. To strengthen it , the author should provide evidence to support that Tria’s regulations contribute nothing to fish populations whereas Omni do . The author should also provide more information about the two cities.

狂响曲UID: 2416643

:loveliness: :loveliness: :loveliness:

hongdanUID: 2228730

The author suggests that Tria should abandon its regulations and adopt those of Omni in order to restore Tria’s fish populations and to protect all of Tria’s marine wildlife. The author points out that currently fish populations in Tria’s water are declining whereas Omni reports no significant decline.He(可以用”He”吗 ?) also cites that the decline is the result of overfishing. This arguments contains several logical flaw(flaws) ,which render it unconvincing .First , the author assumes unfairly that the decline of fish population in Tria is due to overfishing. The author provides no evidence about the pollution circumstance in Tria’s water. It is entirely possible that currently climate in Tria is affected by “greenhouse” and the oxygen flow out from the water so that the fish could not get enough oxygen and die. Also perhaps an（a） ship with oil passing by Tria were leaking and the polluted water cause the death of the fish. Without rolling out these possibilities, the author can not make an conclusion that the decline of fish population is contributed to overfishing. (可能性写得很好)。Second, the author provides no information that what accomplishment we have achieved since established (establishing)the regulations in Tria. Perhaps these regulations did help protect certain marine mammals and then we should consist on adopting them instead of abandoning them. Besides, the purpose of setting up these regulations is to protect marine mammals while not protect fish. Abandoning them is not the key points to increase the population of the fish . Third, the fact the regulations set by Omni is helpful to increase the population of the fish is open to doubt. It is possibly that the report hides some facts and makes up the numbers .Without more information the author can not convince me that Omni’ s regulations is worth to adopt on the basis of uncompleted report. Even if Omni did do a good job due to these regulations. Are they suitable to Tria too? Common Sense informs me that water conditions , locations and climate would affect the populations of fish .Perhaps the people in Omni possess all high quality and wiling to obey them while Tria serve(serves) to opposite. Without enough information about the two cities , the author’s suggestion is unreliable.In sum ,the suggestion that Tria should abandon their regulations and adopts Omni’s regulations to restores Tria’s fish population and protect all of Tria’s marine wildlife is unpersuasive. To strengthen it , the author should provide evidence to support that Tria’s regulations contribute nothing to fish populations whereas Omni do . The author should also provide more information about the two cities.

整体感觉本文的主要逻辑错误均已找出，而且本文的句型用的也很好。
楼主的Issue和Argument都写得很不错，很值得学习。

hongdanUID: 2228730

The author suggests that Tria should abandon its regulations and adopt those of Omni in order to restore Tria’s fish populations and to protect all of Tria’s marine wildlife. （to ）The author points out that currently fish populations in Tria’s water are declining whereas Omni reports no significant decline.He(可以用”He”吗 ?) also cites that the decline is the result of overfishing.（这三句话是在重述原文，衔接的不是很好，之间一个连接词都没有。）This arguments contains several logical flaw(flaws) ,which render it unconvincing .

First , the author assumes unfairly that the decline of fish population in Tria is due to overfishing. The author provides no evidence about the pollution circumstance in Tria’s water. It is entirely possible that currently climate in Tria is affected by “greenhouse” and the oxygen flow out from the water so that the fish could not get enough oxygen and die. Also perhaps an（a） ship with oil passing by Tria were(was) leaking and the polluted water cause(caused) the death of the fish. Without rolling out these possibilities, the author can not make an(a)  conclusion that the decline of fish population is contributed(attributed归因于)  to overfishing. (可能性写得很好！！！)。

Second, the author provides no information that what accomplishment we（不应用“we”，应从客观的角度吧） have achieved since established (establishing)the regulations in Tria. Perhaps these regulations did help protect certain marine mammals and then we should consist on adopting them instead of abandoning them. （前面讲到原文中没有提及Tria自采用原先的规定以来所取得的效果。）Besides, the purpose of setting up these regulations is to protect marine mammals while not （换成rather than） protect fish. Abandoning them is not the key points（point） to increase the population of the fish . （前面两句讲到原文中没有提及Tria自采用原先的规则以来所取得的效果。而后面两句由besides直接引到设立这些规定的目的是保护海洋动物而不是保护鱼，感觉两者没有什么联系。可以对前两句在深入讨论几句再转入后面两句，是不是能更好呢？）

Third, the fact the regulations set by Omni is helpful to increase the population of the fish is open to doubt. It is possibly（possible） that the report hides some facts and makes up the numbers.（这句话写完后没有了下文，是不是多余？或者还要展开往下写？特别是　make up the numbers后文就没有提到）Without more information the author can not convince me(是不是不应用me?) that Omni’ s regulations is(are) worth to adopt on the basis of uncompleted report. Even if Omni did do a good job due to ( 加上the application of是不是更好些) these regulations. Are they suitable to Tria too? Common Sense informs me that water conditions , locations and climate would affect the populations (可换用it is commonsense that~~)  of fish .Perhaps the（删掉不用the，the people代表一个民族）people in Omni possess all high quality and wiling to obey them while Tria serve(serves) to opposite. Without enough information about the two cities , the author’s suggestion（本文用了suggestion这个词好几遍，是不是可以改换其他词呢？如conclusion, statement, recommendation等等） is unreliable.这一段写的是类推类错误，这一类错误是本文的主要错误，建议多看看范文，看之间的陈述是怎么进行的。之间的转折，连接词，递进等等．

In sum ,the suggestion that Tria should abandon their regulations and adopts(adopt) Omni’s regulations to restores Tria’s fish population and protect all of Tria’s marine wildlife is unpersuasive.（这一句直接是开头的第一句话，建议换换语言。） To strengthen it , the author should provide evidence to support that Tria’s regulations contribute nothing to fish populations whereas (加上those of) Omni do . The author should also provide more information about the two cities.（最后一句，可以简要的说哪些信息，本文这样结束有些仓促。）

第一次改时觉得这篇文章真的写得很不错，不知道应该从哪下手去评论，真的很惭愧未能给楼主提出一些好的建议，希望楼主能够谅解。随后的时间里我就看了一些北美范文和其他文章的批改，对这篇文章进行第二次批改。只是能力有限，希望我的建议能对楼主起到一定的帮助。
　
本文从整体上来看，结构比较清晰。但是行文的逻辑不是很好，语句比较单一化。出现了一些语法错误，可能是因为时间的缘故。建议在写完之后一定花上几分钟的时间看看全文。
本人的能力有限，能修改的只有这些了，楼主的文章还是很值得我学习的，一些想法，比如“温室效应”，油船的通过可能导致污染。说明楼主对本文考虑了挺多。
一起加油了！！

[ 本帖最后由 hongdan 于 2007-10-28 16:19 编辑 ]