argument131 [spring] long for...beat

cinda2020UID: 2371432

Argument 131
long for...beat:handshake
“The marine sanctuary on Tria Island was established to protect certain marine mammals, another island, Omni Island, which ban dumping, offshore oil drilling, and fishing within 10 miles of Omni. Tria Island don’t ban fishing within 10 miles of it, it was thought the reason that, compared to the Omni Island, Tria Island’s significant decline in its fish populations. The speaker believes that the best way to restore Tria’s fish populations and to protect all of Tria’s marine wildlife is to abandon old regulations and adopt to those of omni.”

In this argument the speaker attributes that under the same conditions that both the two islands ban dumping, offshore oil drilling, the only difference of not ban fishing within 10 miles of Omni is due to the decline of its fish populations. I find this argument logically unconvincing in several respects. And it is not good to oversimplified abandon old regulations and adopt to those of Omni.

First of all, it doesn’t mention that whether the two islands are located at the near area of one ocean. Even if the two islands are not very far from, the natural condition is different. The primary kind of two island’s fish species may be different. If the fish species are different, the decline of Tria’s fish population may coused by any other nature reason we don’t cared before. For example, the sudden change of water temperature or the increase of some kind of float grass. Both the two reasons are known to have influence on fish’s populations. We could see the experts say some thing like that easily on magazines.

Secondly, and is the fish populations reduce to a dangerous condition? If the originally populations is very big, the decrease in some distant is acceptable. It will be too dogmatically to ban fishing immediately. And could we find any other way to protect the fish? For instance, just fishing a part of the adult fish and leave enough adult fish to produce baby fishes. There not only one way to increase the populations of fish.

Thirdly, on the assumption that the incline of the Tria Island’s fish populations is really coursed by the fishing within 10 miles, is it possible to ban fishing in Tria Island? The reason why Tria Island doesn’t ban fishing maybe the people live in the island earns their live on fishing. If oversimplified to ban fishing may cause trouble to the people who live on the Tria Island.

In sum, it is oversimpe to attribute the fish populations’ incline to not ban fishing. There may be other reasons for the incline of the fish populations, there maybe other way to increase the populations of fish and there may be reasons Tira Island could not ban fishing. I concede that the only reason coursed the incline of the Tria Island’s fish populations may be just the fishing, but before we put out a ban, we should do more research and get abundant information.

Thanks a lot. ^_^

zythamUID: 2365248

In this argument the speaker attributes that under the same conditions that both the two islands ban dumping, offshore oil drilling, the only difference of not ban fishing within 10 miles of Omni is due to the decline of its fish populations. I find this argument logically unconvincing in several respects. And it is not good to oversimplified abandon old regulations and adopt to those of Omni.
开头第一句不应该只说一个论据，而应该指出论点或说明作者论点有误。
First of all, it(the argument/the author) doesn’t mention that whether the two islands are located at the near area of one ocean. 应该说作者没有指出两岛海域具有足够的相似性，而不是把一个和原文没有直接联系的论据放在这里 Even if the two islands are not very far from, the natural condition is different. The primary kind of two island’s fish species may be different. If the fish species are different, the decline of Tria’s fish population may coused by any other nature reason we don’t cared before. For example, the sudden change of water temperature or the increase of some kind of float grass. Both the two reasons are known to have influence on fish’s populations. We could see the experts say some thing like that easily on magazines.

Secondly, and is the fish populations reduce to a dangerous condition? 这个攻击实在有点站不住脚了。这没到危险状态我们就不保护了么，这个有点太强词夺理了。 If the originally populations is very big, the decrease in some distant is acceptable. It will be too dogmatically to ban fishing immediately. And could we find any other way to protect the fish? For instance, just fishing a part of the adult fish and leave enough adult fish to produce baby fishes. There not only one way to increase the populations of fish.

Thirdly, on the assumption that the incline of the Tria Island’s fish populations is really coursed by the fishing within 10 miles, is it possible to ban fishing in Tria Island? The reason why Tria Island doesn’t ban fishing maybe the people live in the island earns their live on fishing. If oversimplified to ban fishing may cause trouble to the people who live on the Tria Island. 这点也对鱼儿太凶残了点啊。。。。

In sum, it is oversimpe to attribute the fish populations’ incline to not ban fishing. There may be other reasons for the incline of the fish populations, there maybe other way to increase the populations of fish and there may be reasons Tira Island could not ban fishing. I concede that the only reason coursed the incline of the Tria Island’s fish populations may be just the fishing, but before we put out a ban, we should do more research and get abundant information.

主要问题：
把自己的论据当作攻击的问题作为分论点。
后正文后两段感觉强词夺理了。可以参考一下yoghut117的argument.  

cinda2020UID: 2371432

非常感谢，组长辛苦了