argument131 Spring-第一次作业

yoghurt711UID: 2414495

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: 500                DATE: 2007-10-24

The author of the enviromental newsletter suggests that to restore Tria's fish populations and to protect all of Tria's marine wildlife, the best way is to abandon the current regulations in Tria and adopt those of Omni. To bolster the suggestion, the author cites some facts and deduces a conclusion from them. However, with the groundless conclusion and ambiguous facts, the author fails to persuade me into accepting the suggestion.

To begin with, the author falsely equals certain marine mammals with many fish. General knowledge tells that marine mammals are just some kinds of fish. Only citing the decline of fish populations cannot prove that the marine mammals in Tria is also decreasing. It is entirely possible that no decline of mammals happens and the main reason for the decreasing is from other kinds of fish rather that mammals. Then, as the marine sanctuary on Tria is for certain ones, it is of great possibility that the population of those marine mammals reduces out of these certain ones. To prove that the regulations in Tria is useless, the author has to take further consideration of the change on the exact marine mammals' populations.

Even if, in Omni, the populations of fish which is considered to be equal with certain marine mammals does not significantly decline, the author cannot assert that this is merely from the different regulations there. As all kinds of the conditions between Tria and Omni can be enormously different, such as temperature of the water, food the fish feed on and counterpart climate, the number of fish can vary. For instance, the water temperature is extremely low in Tria this time of the year, which leads to fish migration out of there. Without providing other factors that may impact on the living of the fish as a contrast between the two locations, the author's suggestion is lame.

Furthermore, the generalization that the decline in Tria Island is from the overfishing rather than pollution is lack of evidence and dubious. The regulations of marine sanctuary on Omni include ones that ban dumping and offshore oil within 10 miles of the island, while the counterpart on Tria is 20 miles. It is quite possible that Omni's regulations result in more severe pollution than that of Tria. Besides, on Omni, the regulation bans fishing within just 10 miles of Omni, which might devote little to the protection of fish populations.

What is more, assuming that the different regulations is effective in Omni,not enough evidence is provided to prove that those would be also effective in Tria, especially relating to the protection of all marine wildlife. Maybe, the regulations of Omni is potent just for certain kinds living in Omni, which is possibly breed aquatics. When it comes to wildlife, the regulations is of little use.As a result, the author has to cite more details.

In conclusion, this environmental newsletter is fraught with groundless facts and dubious assertions. The author has to do more accurate researches mentioned above to persuade us.

shanxinhpUID: 2311857

The author of the enviromental newsletter suggests that to restore Tria's fish populations and to protect all of Tria's marine wildlife, the best way is to abandon the current regulations in Tria and adopt those of Omni. To bolster the suggestion, the author cites some facts and deduces a conclusion from them. However, with the groundless conclusion and ambiguous facts, the author fails to persuade me into accepting the suggestion.

To begin with, the author falsely equals certain marine mammals with many fish. General knowledge tells that marine mammals are(not) just some kinds of fish. Only citing the decline of fish populations cannot prove that the marine mammals in Tria is (are)also decreasing. It is entirely possible that no decline of mammals happens and the main reason for the decreasing(report) is from other kinds of fish rather that(than) mammals. Then, as the marine sanctuary on Tria is for certain ones, it is of great possibility that the population of those marine mammals reduces out of these certain ones. To prove that the regulations in Tria is useless, the author has to take further consideration of the change on the exact marine mammals' populations.

Even if, in Omni, the populations of fish which is considered to be equal with certain marine mammals does not significantly decline, the author cannot assert that this is merely from the different regulations there. As all kinds of the conditions between Tria and Omni can be enormously different, such as temperature of the water, food (加个","吧)the fish feed on and counterpart climate, the number of fish can vary. For instance, the water temperature is extremely low in Tria this time of the year, which leads to fish migration out of there. Without providing other factors that may impact on the living of the fish as a contrast between the two locations, the author's suggestion is lame.

Furthermore, the generalization that the decline in Tria Island is from(due to) the overfishing rather than pollution is lack of evidence and dubious. The regulations of marine sanctuary on Omni include ones that ban dumping and offshore oil within 10 miles of the island, while the counterpart on Tria is 20 miles. It is quite possible that Omni's regulations result in more severe pollution than that of Tria. Besides, on Omni, the regulation bans fishing within just 10 miles of Omni, which might devote little to the protection of fish populations.

What is more, assuming that the different(same) regulations is effective in Omni,not enough evidence is provided to prove that those would be also effective in Tria, especially relating to the protection of all marine wildlife. Maybe, the regulations of Omni is potent just for certain kinds living in Omni, which is possibly breed aquatics. When it comes to wildlife, the regulations is of little use.As a result, the author has to cite more details.

In conclusion, this environmental newsletter is fraught with groundless facts and dubious assertions. The author has to do more accurate researches mentioned above to persuade us.

以上都是个人意见,可能有错,包涵一下
层次感很好,主要矛盾抓的准,
感觉有缺陷的是段落有点多
反正比我强多了

lifeng_913UID: 2397925

The author of the enviromental newsletter suggests that to restore Tria's fish populations and to protect all of Tria's marine wildlife, the best way is to abandon the current regulations in Tria and adopt those of Omni. (good rewriting of the author's suggestion) To bolster the suggestion, the author cites some facts and deduces a conclusion from them. However, with the groundless conclusion and
ambiguous(good words) facts, the author fails to persuade me into accepting the suggestion.(good beginning of the argument)

To begin with, the author falsely equals certain marine mammals with many fish. General knowledge tells that marine mammals are just some kinds of fish.(this sentence is wrong,marine mamals and fishes are different species )Only citing the decline of fish populations cannot prove that the marine mammals in Tria is also decreasing. It is entirely possible that no decline of mammals happens and the main reason for the decreasing is from other kinds of fish rather that mammals. Then, as the marine sanctuary on Tria is for certain ones, it is of great possibility that the population of those marine mammals reduces out of these certain ones. To prove that the regulations in Tria is useless, the author has to take further consideration of the change on the exact marine mammals' populations.

Even if, in Omni, the populations of fish which is considered to be equal with certain marine mammals does not significantly decline, the author cannot assert that this is merely from the different regulations there. As all kinds of the conditions between Tria and Omni can be enormously different, such as temperature of the water, food the fish feed on and counterpart climate, the number of fish can vary. For instance, the water temperature is extremely low in Tria this time of the year, which leads to fish migration out of there. Without providing other factors that may impact on the living of the fish as a contrast between the two locations, the author's suggestion is lame.(good paragraph!good examples)

Furthermore, the generalization that the decline in Tria Island is from the overfishing rather than pollution is lack of evidence and dubious. The regulations of marine sanctuary on Omni include ones that ban dumping and offshore oil within 10 miles of the island, while the counterpart on Tria is 20 miles. It is quite possible that Omni's regulations result in more severe pollution than that of Tria. Besides, on Omni, the regulation bans fishing within just 10 miles of Omni, which might devote little to the protection of fish populations.

What is more, assuming that the different regulations is effective in Omni,not enough(直接用inadequate词语) evidence is provided to prove that those would be also effective in Tria, especially relating to the protection of all marine wildlife. Maybe, the regulations of Omni is potent just for certain kinds living in Omni, which is possibly breed aquatics. When it comes to wildlife, the regulations is of little use.As a result, the author has to cite more details.

In conclusion, this environmental newsletter is fraught with groundless facts and dubious assertions. The author has to do more accurate researches mentioned above to persuade us.(结尾略显单薄,似乎容易给阅卷人一种没有写完的感觉,可以适当增加建议,如the author must assure me that the Omni report accurately reflect the objective fact there,and he must also provide clear evidence for the perception about the feasibility of generalizing the measure of Omni in protecting the fish to all of Tria's wildlife.To better assess the regulations of Omni,I would need more statistical information about the effect of the measure taken in Omin.我是这么用的,看范文经常用什么诸如To bolster....,to better access...,这一类的话,不妨用下)


好文章啊!自亏弗如啊....
词汇使用很准确,且能充分显示具有GRE级别的词汇功底,well done!
好象The author unfairly assumes that the measures taken to protect the fish can protect all of Tria’s marine wildlife.也可以攻击,没注意到你攻击了没有.

my argument is at:https://bbs.gter.net/viewthread.php?tid=754141&extra=page%3D1





[ 本帖最后由 lifeng_913 于 2007-10-27 23:23 编辑 ]

shanxinhpUID: 2311857

谢谢提出那么多建议,要好好练习了,