Argument131【0806G desperado小组】第十五次作业by坐照

wangyu0920UID: 199396

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: 473       DATE: 2008-1-2 22:37:50

1.         没有分析Tria鱼数量减少的原因，除了污染和过度捕捞外可能还存在其他原因
2.         即使只考虑污染和过度捕捞，也不能就此断定是过渡捕捞而不是污染导致鱼的数量减少，或许条例没有很好地被执行，或许除了垃圾和石油外可能还有其他的污染物
3.         没有考虑两个岛屿的不同，因此不能确保Omni的条例再Tria可以有同样好的效果

In this argument, the arguer recommends that Tria Island should adopt the regulations of Omni to replace their own to protect the marine wildlife. To support the argument, the arguer points out that the fish population are declining in Tria Island due to the regulations which ban dumping and offshore oil drilling within 20 miles of the island, while fishing is permitted. Furthermore, the arguer also cites to the result in Omni that no significant decline in its fish populations thanks to the regulations ban fishing. Accordingly, the arguer asserts that it is overfishing rather than pollution that causes the decline in fish populations. However, I find the evidence is insufficient and hence does not lend solid support to what the arguer asserts.

First of all, it is not convincing to assert either pollution or overfishing that lead to the decline in fish populations when the arguer fails to provide any specific analysis on the reason why the number of fish reduced. Common sense tells us that there might be other factors that affect the fish populations. Perhaps the global climate change causes the fluctuation of water temperature, which is not suitable for the fish to survive. And it is entirely possibly that some certain factors increased the number of predators therefore the population of the fish reduced.

Moreover, even though overfishing and pollution are the only two possible reasons, the arguer can not assert it is overfishing rather than pollution that lead to the decline in fish populations in Tria. It is possible that the regulations in Tria are not well operated and dumping still happens there. Or perhaps some other pollutants such as waste toxic water which is not banned by the regulations besides oil and rubbish that kill the fish.

Last but not least, even if it is the overfishing cause the decline in fish populations, there is still no guarantee that the regulations in Omni could protect the marine wildlife in Tria because of the differences between the two islands. The arguer fails to take into account that the climate, natural resources and culture in the two islands might be different. It is truly possible that people in Omni do not have the tradition of fishing while people in Tria have no other choice but fishing to feed them and therefore the measures may not be effective.

In conclusion, the argument is not well supported as it stands. To make it more convincing, the arguer has to provide more information to prove that (1) overfishing is the reason why there is a decline in fish populations in Tria (2) there is no other factors that may cause the decrease of fish populations; (3) the regulations in Omni could be well operated and also be effective to protect the marine wildlife in Tria.