argument131 Spring-第一次作业

yshxaUID: 2303585

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: 515 TIME: 00:30:00

修改过一遍了，重写了第二段和第三段。
In this argument, the author believed that the decline of fish population in Tria is a result of overfishing rather than the former belief of pollution. To support his opinion, the writer enlisted the following evidence: First, Tria marine sanctuary has no regulation regarding fishing. Second, nearby Omni marine sanctuary regulates fishing. Third, Tria suffered from a decline in fish population while Omni reported no significant drop in fish population. However, after a careful scrutiny of the underlying logic and reasoning, I find the evidences are insufficient and inadequate, thus consequently rendering this conclusion to be unconvincing.

First, the writer failed to provide crucial information of the marine environment of both Tria and Omni. Lacking these information, we can not know the decline of fish population is caused by nature of by people. It is possible that Tria had a large unhealthy fish population and the decline is ecologically inevitable. Or maybe the climate in Omni is quite suitable for the growing of fish recently. The writer also ignored other possible reasons of this decline besides the two mentioned above. Thus, the decline at Tria could simply be caused by an underwater current change due to the climate change, which could lead to a shift in food supply for the fish. Or some certain fish-eating marine life has recently invaded the water space at Tria, and ate a number of fish. Even, maybe Omni had actually suffered from a decline, and the fish from Tria migrated to Omni just for a larger space and less competition.Hence, it is unfair for the writer to assert that the decline of fish population is due to overfishing.

Second, there is no obvious reason which shows the adoption of regulations in Omni will bring effective influence for the fish population in Tria. It is possible that in Omni most fish live in the area within 10 miles from the seashore, while in Tria the area of living fish is much larger. So this regulation will not fit the condition of Tria. The efficiency of the local government is also an important factor. For example, if the officials in Tria suffer from low working efficiency, and provide poor guarantee in the execution of the regulations, how can we believe the new regulations will help to increase our fish population?

Finally, the regulation in Tria is established to protect certain marine mammals. We may consider that this certain marine mammals live within 20 miles from Tria’s seashore. Although the population of fish is declining, the protection of that mammal may be more important and more urgent. Therefore we can not reduce our protection circle to only 10 miles as Omni dose, because that may be harmful to the life of this mammal.

In sum, the writer of this article failed to convince me the decline of fish population in Tria is caused by overfishing. To substantiate his/her point, the writer should provide further evidences such as environmental conditions and current status of the ecosystem of both Tria and Omni. Therefore we can make our decision more reasonable and more pertinently.

[ 本帖最后由 yshxa 于 2007-10-27 22:08 编辑 ]

zythamUID: 2365248

In this argument, the author believed that the decline of fish population in Tria is a result of overfishing rather than the former belief of pollution. To support his opinion, the writer enlisted the following evidence: First, Tria marine sanctuary has no regulation regarding fishing. Second, nearby Omni marine sanctuary regulates fishing. Third, Tria suffered from a decline in fish population while Omni reported no significant drop in fish population. However, after a careful scrutiny of the underlying logic and reasoning, I find the evidences are insufficient and inadequate, thus consequently rendering this conclusion to be unconvincing.
我觉得开头简单些，会有更多时间写正文。

First, the writer failed to provide crucial information of the marine environment of both Tria and Omni. Lacking these information, we can not know the decline of fish population is caused by nature of by people. It is possible that Tria had large an unhealthy fish population 汗个 and the decline is ecologically inevitable. Or maybe the climate in Omni is quite suitable for the growing of fish recently. Hence, it is unfair for the writer to assert that the decline of fish population is due to overfishing.


Second, the writer ignored other possible reasons of this decline besides the two mentioned above. Thus, the decline at Tria could simply be caused by an underwater current change due to the climate change, which could lead to a shift in food supply for the fish. Or some certain fish-eating marine life has recently invaded the water space at Tria, and ate a number of fish. Even, maybe Omni had actually suffered from a decline, and the fish from Tria migrated to Omni just for a larger space and less competition.
感觉正文第一段和第二段有一些逻辑交缠。

Finally, the regulation in Tria is established to protect certain marine mammals. We may consider that this certain marine mammals live within 20 miles from Tria’s seashore. Although the population of fish is declining, the protection of that mammal may be more important and more urgent. Therefore we can not reduce our protection circle to only 10 miles as Omni dose, because that may be harmful to the life of this mammal.
我觉得这是很好的一点，可以更强的攻击。放在最后好像有点浪费了。

In sum, the writer of this article failed to convince me the decline of fish population in Tria is caused by overfishing. To substantiate his/her point, the writer should provide further evidences such as environmental conditions and current status of the ecosystem of both Tria and Omni. Therefore we can make our decision more reasonable and more pertinently.

我觉得，如果对于每个错误攻击更透彻些可能会更好。

[ 本帖最后由 zytham 于 2007-10-26 18:20 编辑 ]

dairuxin512UID: 2178329

In this argument, the author believed that the decline of fish population in Tria is a result of overfishing rather than the former belief of pollution. To support his opinion, the writer enlisted(listed) the following evidence: First, Tria marine sanctuary has no regulation regarding fishing. Second, nearby Omni marine sanctuary regulates fishing. Third, Tria suffered from a decline in fish population while Omni reported no significant drop in fish population. However, after a careful scrutiny of the underlying logic and reasoning, I find the evidences are insufficient and inadequate, thus consequently rendering this conclusion to be unconvincing.

First, the writer failed to provide crucial information of the marine environment of both Tria and Omni. Lacking these information, we can not know the decline of fish population is caused by nature of(or) by people. It is possible that Tria had a large unhealthy fish population and the decline is ecologically inevitable. Or maybe the climate in Omni is quite suitable for the growing of fish recently. The writer also ignored other possible reasons of this decline besides the two mentioned above. Thus,在这里用thus好像不太合适，换个用于举例的词吧the decline at Tria could simply be caused by an underwater current change due to the climate change, which could lead to a shift in food supply for the fish. Or some certain fish-eating marine life has recently invaded the water space at Tria, and ate a number of fish. Even, maybe Omni had actually suffered from a decline, and the fish from Tria migrated to Omni just for a larger space and less competition.Hence, it is unfair for the writer to assert that the decline of fish population is due to overfishing.

Second, there is no obvious reason which shows the adoption of regulations in Omni will bring effective influence for the fish population in Tria. It is possible that in Omni most fish live in the area within 10 miles from the seashore, while in Tria the area of living fish is much larger. So this regulation will not fit the condition of Tria. The efficiency of the local government is also an important factor. For example, if the officials in Tria suffer from low working efficiency, and provide poor guarantee in the execution of the regulations, how can we believe the new regulations will help to increase our fish population?这一段写得很好，条理清楚哦

Finally, the regulation in Tria is established to protect certain marine mammals. We may consider that this certain marine mammals live within 20 miles from Tria’s seashore. Although the population of fish is declining, the protection of that mammal may be more important and more urgent. Therefore we can not reduce our protection circle to only 10 miles as Omni dose, because that may be harmful to the life of this mammal.想法很新颖！

In sum, the writer of this article failed to convince me the decline of fish population in Tria is caused by overfishing. To substantiate his/her point, the writer should provide further evidences such as environmental conditions and current status of the ecosystem of both Tria and Omni. Therefore we can make our decision more reasonable and more pertinently.

写的不错，逻辑和条理都挺清楚的，语言很好，举的例子也比较贴切，尤其在分析第一点时，想了很多中可能。不过感觉开头可以短点，比如简单写写作者举的例子之类的。正文中关于第二第三点的分析还可以多一些。
谢谢你不仅帮我改了ISSUE， 还改了ARGUMENT，而且提的建议很中肯哦！看到你文章，我就找到差距了。你把你在群中的昵称告诉我吧，想找你问问我用什么方法能短时间内提高一点语言水平，谢谢！

lazypiggyUID: 2411706

In this argument, the author believed that the decline of fish population in Tria is a result of overfishing rather than the former belief of pollution. To support his opinion, the writer enlisted the following evidence: First, Tria marine sanctuary has no regulation regarding fishing. Second, nearby Omni marine sanctuary regulates fishing. Third, Tria suffered from a decline in fish population while Omni reported no significant drop in fish population. However, after a careful scrutiny of the underlying logic and reasoning, I find the evidences are insufficient and inadequate, thus consequently rendering this conclusion to be unconvincing.

First, the writer failed to provide crucial information of the marine environment of both Tria and Omni. Lacking this information, we can not know the decline of fish population is caused by nature of by people. It is possible that Tria had a large unhealthy fish population and the decline is ecologically inevitable. Or maybe the climate in Omni is quite suitable for the growing of fish recently. The writer also ignored other possible reasons of this decline besides the two mentioned above. Thus, the decline at Tria could simply be caused by an underwater current change due to the climate change, which could lead to a shift in food supply for the fish. Or some certain fish-eating marine life has recently invaded the water space at Tria, and ate a number of fish. Even, maybe Omni had actually suffered from a decline, and the fish from Tria migrated to Omni just for a larger space and less competition. Hence, it is unfair for the writer to assert that the decline of fish population is due to overfishing.

Second, there is no obvious reason which shows the adoption of regulations in Omni will bring effective influence for the fish population in Tria. It is possible that in Omni most fish live in the area within 10 miles from the seashore, while in Tria the area of living fish is much larger. So this regulation will not fit the condition of Tria. The efficiency of the local government is also an important factor. For example, if the officials in Tria suffer from low working efficiency, and provide poor guarantee in the execution of the regulations, how can we believe the new regulations will help to increase our fish population?
这段的观点很鲜明，论证也很不错的，但是放在最后可能会比较好点哦~

Finally, the regulation in Tria is established to protect certain marine mammals. We may consider that this certain marine mammals live within 20 miles from Tria’s seashore. Although the population of fish is declining, the protection of that mammal may be more important and more urgent. Therefore we can not reduce our protection circle to only 10 miles as Omni dose, because that may be harmful to the life of this mammal.
这段的观点我喜欢，自己没有想到的。但是个人认为可以考虑提到前面去详细写一写，然后在退一步论证即使对于fish来说结论也是不对的，这样从大类讲到小类会不会好点？

In sum, the writer of this article failed to convince me the decline of fish population in Tria is caused by overfishing. To substantiate his/her point, the writer should provide further evidences such as environmental conditions and current status of the ecosystem of both Tria and Omni. Therefore we can make our decision more reasonable and more pertinently.

通读全文以后受益匪浅哦，因为我自己不会写Argument，从你的文章中似乎找到了那么一点滴感觉~限时写的很赞哦，继续加油~