Argument131[Jet]第10次作业

zhxj1985UID: 2353169

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: 529          TIME: 01:27:15          DATE: 2008-2-23 17:08:28

The argument concludes that in order to restore Tria's fish population and protect all of Tria's marine wildlife the Tria Island should abandon their regulations and adopt those of Omni. To justify this claim, the arguer provides an analogy of fish population between Tria Island and Omni Island. I think this argument has some merits, however, several important concerns, which the arguer fails to address in the analysis, may strongly undermine this argument.

First of all, the author fails to present any evidence to support the causal relationship between not banning fishing and fish populations declining. The author does not explain why fishing is not banned in Tria's waters, are fish in the waters of Tria Island not fit to fishing? If so, no overfishing at all. Furthermore, the author does not provide any information of fishers in this area, if there are not many fishers fishing in Tria's waters, overfishing is not a problem. So it is not reasonable to get the conclusion subjectively that the decline in fish populations in Tria's waters is the reasult of overfishing just because that fishing in this area is not banned.

In addition, the arguer admits that some people contributed the decline of fish populations to pollution, but he/she does not offer that how these people got this conclusion, if they are all experts in the realm of marine wildlife and conducted many survey and research before attaining this result that the fish populations declining is caused by pollution which was proposed by the government of Tria Island, then the result might be more official. On the other hand, banning dumping and offshore oil drilling within 20 miles of Tria does not mean that there isn't any pollution within 20 miles of Tria. Does this island have any accidents such as conflict of oil ships recently? Are there any companies which infract the ban of dumping? Etc. The arguer couldn't convince me that the decline in fish populations in Tria's waters is not the reasult of pollution without giving explanations of questions above.

Finally, there aren't any information of the two islands offered by the author to substantiate the reliability of the analogy. So the analogy might be fallacious as the water conditions and the species of fish might be different in these two islands. The species of fish in Tria's waters might not adaptive to the waters in Ormni. So it might be not suitable to just copy the regulations of Omni without any changes. What's more, suppose that adopting regulations of Omni did protect the fish populations in Tria's waters, there are not any guarantee that they will also protect all of marine wildlife in Tria Island. On the other hand, are there any other alternatives to protect the fish population in Tria's waters which might be more suitable than those of Omni?

In sum, the arguer fails to establish a causal relationship between the decline in fish populations in Tria's waters and overfishing. And the analogy used by the author as evidence might be fallacious without any instruction of the two islands. So before implementing regulations adopted of Omni, the local government should estimate all possible alternatives.

dreamstringUID: 2389201

The argument concludes that in order to restore Tria's fish population and protect all of Tria's marine wildlife the Tria Island should abandon their regulations and adopt those of Omni. To justify this claim, the arguer provides an analogy of fish population between Tria Island and Omni Island. I think this argument has some merits, however, several important concerns, which the arguer fails to address in the analysis, may strongly undermine this argument.

First of all, the author fails to present any evidence to support the causal relationship between not banning fishing and fish populations declining. The author does not explain why fishing is not banned in Tria's waters, (这里另起一句吧？不然没有连词了)are(do) fish in the waters of Tria Island not fit to fishing? If so, (there is) no overfishing at all. Furthermore, the author does not provide any information of fishers in this area, 另起一句if there are not many fishers fishing in Tria's waters, overfishing is not a problem. So it is not reasonable to get the conclusion subjectively that the decline in fish populations in Tria's waters is the reasult of overfishing just because that fishing in this area is not banned.

In addition, the arguer admits that some people contributed the decline of fish populations to pollution, but he/she does not offer that how these people got this conclusion, if they are all experts in the realm of marine wildlife and conducted many surveys and researches before attaining this result that the fish populations declining is caused by pollution which was proposed by the government of Tria Island, then the result might be more official. On the other hand, banning dumping and offshore oil drilling within 20 miles of Tria does not mean that there isn't any pollution within 20 miles of Tria. Does this island have any accidents such as conflict of oil ships recently? Are there any companies which infract the ban of dumping? Etc. The arguer couldn't convince me that the decline in fish populations in Tria's waters is not the reasult of pollution without giving explanations of questions above.

Finally, there aren't any information of the two islands offered by the author to substantiate the reliability of the analogy. So the analogy might be fallacious as the water conditions and the species of fish might be different in these two islands. The species of fish in Tria's waters might not adaptive(adapt或者be adaptive) to the waters in Ormni. So it might be not suitable to just copy the regulations of Omni without any changes. What's more, suppose that adopting regulations of Omni did protect the fish populations in Tria's waters, there are not any guarantee that they will also protect all of marine wildlife in Tria Island. On the other hand, are there any other alternatives to protect the fish population in Tria's waters which might be more suitable than those of Omni?

In sum, the arguer fails to establish a causal relationship between the decline in fish populations in Tria's waters and overfishing. And the analogy used by the author as evidence might be fallacious without any instruction of the two islands. So before implementing regulations adopted of Omni, the local government should estimate all possible alternatives.

写的不错哇，呵呵~~加油加油！