argument131 [jet小组]第十次作业

michaelxuywUID: 2330197

ARGUMENT131 - The following appeared in an environmental newsletter published in Tria Island.
　　
"The marine sanctuary on Tria Island was established to protectcertain marine mammals. Its regulations ban dumping and offshore oildrilling within 20 miles of Tria, but fishing is not banned. Currentlymany fish populations in Tria's waters are declining, a situationblamed on pollution. In contrast, the marine sanctuary on Omni Islandhas regulations that ban dumping, offshore oil drilling, and fishingwithin 10 miles of Omni and Omni reports no significant decline in itsfish populations. Clearly, the decline in fish populations in Tria'swaters is the result of overfishing, not pollution. Therefore, the bestway to restore Tria's fish populations and to protect all of Tria'smarine wildlife is to abandon our regulations and adopt those of Omni."

The author of this newsletter, inspired by the difference of fish proportion of the two islands, suggests that the former to adopt a more stringent regulation in order to restore Tria's fish population and to protect all of Tria's marine wildlife. However, this suggestion is fallacious because of  its two faulty premises and overlooking of other alternatives.

Firstly, one premise which the argument rests is that the overfishing in Tria's water causes the recent recline of fish populations, however, this premise is unsubstantiated for the author fails to rule out other possible alternatives which could lead to the decline. The oil, although banned dumping within 20 miles of Tria, still is likely to intrude the inner water with the help of wind or waves, which pollute the water. Or perhaps, the water is polluted by other kinds of waste such as garbage, dirty liquid, or industrial waste, all of which are not baned by the current regulation. Hence, we have reason to suspect the causal relation between the overfishing and the decline of fish population until the author provides convincing evidence such as the recent increase amount of fishing and rule out the other possible alternatives.

Secondly, even though the decline of fish population was caused by the overfishing, the author still makes a hasty judgement that the protection of fish population of Tria would enjoy a similar success as Omni does by abandon the current regulations and adopting those of Omni. However, because the author provide no evidence to show the situations at two islands are similar, it's entirely possible that distribution of fish around two islands are totally different. Perhaps, most fishes near the Tria Island live relatively far from the center of the Island, thus only a small fraction of fish would be protected from fishing, while most of them are still not safe.

Moreover, the author makes a unsubstantiated assumption that the restore of fish population would help better protect the marine mammals. However, commonsense tells me that this is not necessarily the case. Perhaps, the sea food would significantly decreased due the restored population of fish, which could make it harder for marine mammals to survive. Or perhaps, the marine mammals would face a direct danger of their enemies which are brought about due the increase of fish population. Also, no convincing evidence is provide to show how well the marine wildlife except fish are protected at Omni Island under their regulation, therefore, the apparent stringent regulation only do good to fish population but have no little impact on protection of marine mammal.

In sum, this suggestion is well presented, but not thoroughly reasoned. To make it logically sound, the author should provide evidence to determine the true cause of decline of fish population and confirm that fish population is vital for protecting the marine mammals.

tomchaogreUID: 2460910

Firstly, one premise (on) which the argument rests is that the overfishing in Tria's water causes the recent recline(decline :-) ) of fish populations, however, this premise is unsubstantiated for the author fails to rule out other possible alternatives which could lead to the decline. The oil, although banned dumping within 20 miles of Tria, still is likely to intrude the inner water with the help of wind or waves, which pollute(s) the water. Or perhaps, the water is polluted by other kinds of waste such as garbage, dirty liquid, or industrial waste, all of which are not baned by the current regulation. Hence, we have reason to suspect the causal relation between the overfishing and the decline of fish population until the author provides convincing evidence such as the recent increase amount of fishing and rule out the other possible alternatives.
1.overfishing--?->decline

Secondly, even though the decline of fish population was caused by the overfishing, the author still makes a hasty judgement that the protection of fish population of Tria would enjoy a similar success as Omni does by abandon(ing) the current regulations and adopting those of Omni. However, because the author provide(d) no evidence to show the situations at(on更好) two islands are similar, it's entirely possible that distribution of fish around two islands are totally different. Perhaps, most fishes near the Tria Island live relatively far from the center of the Island, thus only a small fraction of fish would be protected from fishing, while most of them are still not safe.
2.two island--->different situation different solution

Moreover, the author makes a unsubstantiated assumption that the restore of fish population would help better protect the marine mammals. However, commonsense tells me that this is not necessarily the case. Perhaps, the sea food would significantly decreased due the restored population of fish, which could make it harder for marine mammals to survive. Or perhaps, the marine mammals would face a direct danger of their enemies which are brought about due the increase of fish population. Also, no convincing evidence is provide to show how well the marine wildlife except fish are protected at Omni Island under their regulation, therefore, the apparent stringent regulation only do good to fish population but have no little impact on protection of marine mammal（s）.抓住了mammals与fish的区别，这一点我没做到呵呵~ 不过似乎不需要把mammal与fish的假想关系说得这么细，点出两个概念有区别即可。
3.mammals and fish

In sum, this suggestion is well presented, but not thoroughly reasoned. To make it logically sound, the author should provide evidence to determine the true cause of decline of fish population and confirm that fish population is vital for protecting the marine mammals.

你的论证点
1.overfishing--->decline?
2.two island--->different situation different solution
3.mammals and fish
我的论证点 http://bbs.gter.ce.cn/bbs/thread-805778-1-1.html
1.fish moves ---> fish decline & fish dying?
2.region different pollution different fishing different
3.fishing necessity
你我第一二条相同，第一条提出鱼类数量减少的原因值得研究，第二条指出地方不同经验不可直接照搬，第三条你找出重要的一点mammals与fish词被换掉了，而我就禁止捕鱼又指出要全面考虑，各有所长。

总评价：语言比较流畅，但出彩的句子偏少。有少量粗心的语法错误，时间有限也难免。