Argument131 Spring-第一次作业

dairuxin512UID: 2178329

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."

这是我的第一篇Argument， 用时大约70分钟，挺长的！字数606，写的不好，希望兄弟姐妹给出意见。小女子感激不尽。
The author claimed that the regulations about protecting marine mammals on Tria Island are not efficient, during analyzing and comparing with the conditions on Omni Island, he or she thought the main problem is that protectors on Tria have not adopted any measures to avoid over fishing. Then, the author suggested that the wisest way to abandon Tria’s present regulation is to choose methods what Omni has used. After careful examination of the suggestion and reasons the author proposed, however, I cannot assurance his or her proposal is credible.
First of all, no sufficient evidence is put out to make sure over fishing is the key point resulting in the decline in fish populations, not pollution or other reasons. Though the marine sanctuary on Tria Island have established regulations to ban dumping and offshore oil drilling, the article does not describe how did these regulations execute? One condition might be the regulations have not carried out well because of executive officer’s ignorance or developer’s unwilling to cooperate. Even the organization’s staffs do their best to prevent oil pollution; there might be other pollution sources, like effluent from factories or residents’ living districts. Besides pollution, some additional facts can affect fish populations, for example, water temporary, food or ocean currents. Anyhow, the author did not exclude other reasons which can explain the decline of fish number, so I will not make sure over fishing is a correct answer.
Secondly but most obvious logic flaw is that the author made a correlation between Tria and Omni, and consider the effective actions Omni has done would also be useful on Tria as long as Tria exchanging now regulations to Omni’s. The skeptical point is no information is given out to prove this is true. Maybe around Omni Island there is always a large fish population, and it is just a previous formed habit of fish. Maybe the geology and climate condition on Omni Island is more proper for fish to live and multiply. Or amounts of fish gather around Omni because they are attracted by fluent foods near Omni Island. But all of these have no relationship with regulations Omni adopted. That means any protect regulations cannot solve the lack of congenital conditions. Even assumed the environment in Omni and Tria is similar, there is no any guarantee about the intensity of rule’s execution. Omni’s marine sanctuary might have a strongly executable team so marine animals can be protected well all the time. In contrast, Tria’s team is so weak that they have no ability to prevent over fishing even if some new rules are enacted. In a word, the newsletter provides no credible evidence to persuade us Tria will restore fish populations more efficiently when adopting Omni’s methods.
Thirdly, the marine sanctuary’s responsibility is to protect certain marine mammals as the newsletter explained. I am puzzled that does fish belong to marine mammals? According to common sense, many people do not think fish is a kind of marine mammals. Based on this notion, the regulations established for protecting marine mammals would not be fit fish protection. Then all suggestions this article proposed would have no help to recover fish populations.
To sum up, the argument is logically unsound. To better evaluate author’s suggestion, the newsletter must provide sufficient and believable evidence to demonstrate over fishing is the most important reason to explain the decline in fish population, not pollution or other possible facts. And the author should compare carefully between Omni and Tria’s nature conditions and concheck their differences on regulations’ execution. In addition, it is important to prove that protection measures design for marine mammals are efficient to fish as well.

[ 本帖最后由 dairuxin512 于 2007-10-24 10:38 编辑 ]

yshxaUID: 2303585

The author claimed that the regulations about protecting marine mammals on Tria Island are not efficient. During analyzing and comparing with the conditions on Omni Island, he or she thought the main problem is that protectors on Tria have not adopted any measures to avoid over fishing. Then, the author suggested that the wisest way is to abandon Tria’s present regulation and choose the methods what Omni has used. After careful examination of the suggestion and reasons the author proposed, however, I cannot ensure his or her proposal is credible.
First of all, no sufficient evidence is put out to make sure that over fishing, rather than pollution or other reasons, is the key point causing the decline in fish populations. Though the marine sanctuary on Tria Island have established regulations to ban dumping and offshore oil drilling, the article does not describe how (did) these regulations are executed.（不是问句） One condition might be the regulations have not carried out well because of executive officer’s ignorance or developer’s unwilling to cooperate. Even the organization’s staffs had done(虚拟语气）their best to prevent oil pollution; there might be other pollution sources, like effluent from factories or residential areas. Besides pollution, some additional facts can affect fish populations, for example, water temporary(:confused: 临时的水？), food or ocean currents. Anyhow, the author (did not) excluded（excluded就是拒绝啦，不用再加did not了） other reasons which can explain the decline of fish number, so I will not make sure over fishing is a correct answer.
Secondly, a more obvious logic flaw is that the author made a correlation between Tria and Omni, and consider the effective actions Omni has done would also be useful on Tria as long as Tria exchanging now regulations to Omni’s. The skeptical point is that no information had been given out to prove its facticity. Maybe around Omni Island there is always a large fish population, and it is just a previous formed habit of fish(:confused: 没看懂……). Maybe the geology and climate condition on Omni Island is more proper for fish to live and multiply. Or amounts of fish gather around Omni because they are attracted by fluent foods near Omni Island. But all of these have no relationship with regulations Omni had adopted. That means any protective regulations cannot solve the lack of congenital conditions. Even assumed the environment in Omni and Tria is similar, we can not guarantee这样觉得通顺一些 the intensity of rule’s execution. Omni’s marine sanctuary might have a strongly executable team so marine animals can be protected well all the time. In contrast, Tria’s team is so weak that they have no ability to prevent over fishing even if some new rules are enacted. In a word, the newsletter provides no credible evidence to persuade us that Tria will restore fish populations more efficiently when adopting Omni’s methods.
Thirdly, the marine sanctuary’s responsibility is to protect certain marine mammals as the newsletter explained. I am puzzled that does fish belong to marine mammals? According to common sense, many people do not think fish is a kind of marine mammals. Based on this notion, the regulations established for protecting marine mammals would not be fit fish protection. Then all suggestions this article proposed would have no help to recover fish populations.这段写的不错哦~
To sum up, the argument is logically unsound. To better evaluate author’s suggestion, the newsletter must provide sufficient and believable evidence to demonstrate over fishing is the most important reason to explain the decline in fish population, not pollution or other possible facts. And the author should compare carefully between Omni and Tria’s nature conditions and concheck（这词啥意思？） their differences on regulations’ execution. In addition, it is important to prove that protection measures design for marine mammals are efficient to fish as well.

总的说来，这篇argu的结构和内容都相当不错，看来你写argu还是很有天赋的哦~唯一不足的地方还是语言，还有些语法问题，比如有的情况下引导从句必须用that，有的像长从句也最好用that，读起来感觉好一些。不过可能每个人都有自己的习惯性错误吧，比如我写的时候就经常时态上出错，自己还发现不了。不过这个问题不大，多注意就行了。
谢谢你帮我改issue哦~你的文章本来就是该我改的，不客气啦~

dairuxin512UID: 2178329

谢谢你帮我批改哦！说实话，我真的超佩服你的语言功底，改得地方都很到位。唉！我真的要在语言上提高了，下次想找你交流一下，看看你有没有什么好的建议。