arguement131 spring第一次作业 有拍必回!!!

demerzelUID: 2415264

本人第一次写作，argue耗时2小时。。。用词贫乏，语句单调，还请各位牛人非牛人批评！:handshake （尤其是语法。。。。太差了我）

ARGUEMENT131
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: 479

In this newsletter, the arguer suggests that the course of protect Tria's marine mammals failed. In contrast, because of the regulations which ban the fishing, the marine in Omni water do not suffer a serious decline. The Arthur recommends that in order to restore fish populations we should abandon the original plan and adopt the Omni's regulations which the dumping, offshore oil drilling and fishing are banned. This argument is logical flawed in several aspects.
First of all, the arguer unfairly assumes that Tria's fish populations are declining. However there is no direct evidence provided to support this assumption. Perhaps the fish populations do not suffer a decline, it is possible that winter is coming, some spices of fish move to a warm place and come back in the next spring of Tria conduct by their nature. Due to the same reason, the conclusion that Omni does not suffer a decline in fish populations is also groundless. If this is the case, the arguer cannot persuade me to accept any recommendation about how to protect Tria's marine mammals.
Author problem of this argument is even if we accept that the amount of Tria's fish is fewer than ever, the recommendation that adopting Omni's regulation is a best way to restore Tria's fish populations. Tria and Omni may have different situations such as ----- the number of factory beside the shore; the education level of local resident; the population of the local area; the development level of tourism industry. Perhaps the Tria has a small scale of population and a undeveloped tourism industry. So the fishing ban will do nothing to the declining of the Tria's fish populations. I would not accept the recommendation until the arguer rule out these and other factors about the difference between the two area.
Finally, Even if we accept that the regulation of Omni can be helpful to Tria's. The arguer unfairly assumes that accept the regulation of Omni will help to restore all kinds of marine mammals in the Tria's water. The declining of marine mammals, maybe, does not completely due to the overfishing. For instance, some kinds of deepwater fish can not be fishing by human. The decline of those fish maybe cause by the temperature of the water which is can not control by a local course. Unless the arguer provides clear evidence that the overfishing will cause every species of fish's declining, I will not agree with the recommendation.
To sum up, this recommendation reached in this argument is not well reasoned. To strengthen it, the arguer must provide the recent record of the populations of fish in Tria's area. Moreover, I would suspend my judgment about the credibility of the recommendation until the arguer can provide concrete evidence that overfishing is the only course of the decline of fish's population in Tria.


[ 本帖最后由 demerzel 于 2007-10-25 18:30 编辑 ]

神奇的光UID: 2398821

In this newsletter, the arguer suggests that the course of protect Tria's marine mammals failed. In contrast, because of the regulations which ban the（去掉the） fishing, the marine（是不是少了一个fish?） in Omni water（waters） do not suffer a serious decline. The Arthur recommends that in order to restore fish populations we should abandon the original plan and adopt the Omni's regulations which the dumping, offshore oil drilling and fishing are（加上all会更好） banned. This argument is logical flawed in several aspects.（或许用aspects也可以，但是北美范文用的都是respects）
      First of all, the arguer unfairly assumes that Tria's fish populations are declining. However there is no direct evidence provided to support this assumption. Perhaps the fish populations do not suffer a decline, it is possible that winter is coming, some spices of fish move to a warm place and(will) come back in the next spring of Tria conduct(ed) by their nature. Due to the same reason, the conclusion that Omni does not suffer a decline in fish populations is also groundless. If this is the case, the arguer cannot persuade me to accept any recommendation about how to protect Tria's marine mammals.
      Author（another） problem of this argument is even if we accept that the amount of Tria's fish is fewer than ever, the recommendation that adopting Omni's regulation is a best way to restore Tria's fish populations(is still unconvincing). Tria and Omni may have different situations such as ----- the number of factory beside the shore; the education level of local resident; the population of the local area; the development level of tourism industry. Perhaps the Tria has a small scale of population and a undeveloped tourism industry. So the fishing ban will do nothing to the declining of the Tria's fish populations. I would not accept the recommendation until the arguer rule out these and other factors about the difference between the two area.
      Finally, Even if we accept that the regulation of Omni can be helpful to Tria's, the arguer unfairly assumes that accept(ing) the regulation of Omni will help to restore all kinds of marine mammals in the Tria's water(s). The declining of marine mammals, maybe, does not completely due to the overfishing. For instance, some kinds of deepwater fish can not be fishing by human. The decline of those fish maybe cause by the temperature of the water which is can not control by a local course(这个论点好！). Unless the arguer provides clear evidence that the(去掉) overfishing will cause(causes) every species of fish's declining, I will not agree with the recommendation.
      To sum up, this recommendation reached in this argument is not well reasoned. To strengthen it, the arguer must provide the recent record of the populations of fish in Tria's area. Moreover, I would suspend my judgment about the credibility of the recommendation until the arguer can provide concrete evidence that overfishing is the only course(cause) of the decline of fish's population in Tria.
此外原文还有一个纰漏可供反驳：原文假定Tria岛的鱼类数目的下降与污染无关，理由是该岛“禁止在延安20英里以内倾倒垃圾和钻采石油”。但是，原文不能证明人们很好地履行了该规定；或许Omni岛上的人很好地执行了关于禁止污染的规定，所以他们的鱼类数目才没有下降。也就是说，原文不能彻底排除污染是造成Tria岛鱼类减少的可能性。

demerzelUID: 2415264

"原文不能证明人们很好地履行了该规定"

嗯，很有道理，记住了！！谢谢拍砖！

lifeng_913UID: 2397925

In this newsletter, the arguer suggests that the course of protect Tria's marine mammals failed. In contrast, because of the regulations which ban the fishing, the marine in Omni water do not suffer a serious decline. The Arthur recommends that in order to restore fish populations we should abandon the original plan and adopt the Omni's regulations which the dumping, offshore oil drilling and fishing are banned. This argument is logical flawed in several aspects.(感觉开头直接说the arguer suggests that.... failed有点突兀,因为还没有论证,可以参考范文上的,写成 改写作者观点+The author suffers from several problems,which render in unconvincing as it stands.这一类的句子)
First of all, the arguer unfairly assumes that Tria's fish populations are declining. However there is no direct evidence provided to support this assumption. Perhaps the fish populations do not suffer a decline, it is possible that winter is coming, some spices of fish move to a warm place and come back in the next spring of Tria conduct by their nature. Due to the same reason, the conclusion that Omni does not suffer a decline in fish populations is also groundless. If this is the case, the arguer cannot persuade me to accept any recommendation about how to protect Tria's marine mammals.
Author problem of this argument可删除, 直接用moreover起头即可 even if we accept that the amount of Tria's fish is fewer than ever, the recommendation that adopting Omni's regulation is a best way to restore Tria's fish populations. Tria and Omni may have different situations such as ----- the number of factory beside the shore; the education level of local resident; the population of the local area; the development level of tourism industry. Perhaps the Tria has a small scale of population and a undeveloped tourism industry. So the fishing ban will do nothing to the declining of the Tria's fish populations. I would not accept the recommendation until the arguer rule out these and other factors about the difference between the two area
Finally, Even if we accept that the regulation of Omni can be helpful to Tria's,The arguer unfairly assumes that accept the regulation of Omni will help to restore all kinds of marine mammals in the Tria's water. The declining of marine mammals, maybe, does not completely due to the overfishing.(注意:ARGU里面没有提到marine mammals也减少了) For instance, some kinds of deepwater fish can not be fishing by human. The decline of those fish maybe cause by the temperature of the water which is can not control by a local course. Unless the arguer provides clear evidence that the overfishing will cause every species of fish's declining, I will not agree with the recommendation.
To sum up, this recommendation reached in this argument is not well reasoned. To strengthen it, the arguer must provide the recent record of the populations of fish in Tria's area. Moreover, I would suspend my judgment about the credibility of the recommendation until the arguer can provide concrete evidence that overfishing is the only course of the decline of fish's population in Tria.

还有2个可以攻击的地方:
1) The author fails to provide any evidence to substantiate the assumption that the decline in fish populations in Tria’s water dues to overfishing.
2) The author unfairly assumes that there is no pollution happened in Tria Island.