Argument131 [Jet小组] 第十次作业

滴滴雨儿UID: 2392741

题目：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."
字数：510          用时：0:30:00          日期：2008-2-24

The author asserts that the decline in fish populations in Tria's waters is due to overfishing, rather than pollution and suggests the best way to restore Tria's fish populations and to protect all of Tria's marine wildlife is to abandon its original regulations and adopt those of Omni, a island reports no significant decline in its fish populations. I disagree with the author for his or her conclusion contains several facets that are questionable.

First of all, the argument fails to provide evidence about the cause of the decline in Tria's fish population. As the argument says, the marine sanctuary on Tria Island was established to protect certain marine mammals. It is highly because the increase number of marine mammals which regard fish as their main food that leads the decline in fish populations. Besides, though the regulations ban dumpling and offshore oil drilling within 20 miles of Tria, there may still oil drifting towards this area from outside of 20 miles, since the waves are usually affected by sea wind and ultimately by the change of weather. Even if there is no oil, life garbage can pollute the waters as well. The regulations don't ban dumping garbage into Tria's waters and that probably cause the decline of the fish population.

Secondly, the author made an unconvincing analogy since he or she doesn't rule out other aspects between these two islands. There is no further information about the qualities of waters in these two islands' area and nor numbers of fish there. We cannot simply adopt regulations of Omni to Tria without this information. If there are few fish within 10 miles of Tria, than ban fishing within 10 miles of Tria would have little effects.

What's more, there is no statistics on Omni's fish population given in the argument, thus we cannot conclude that Omni's regulation is good for even itself. The argument only provides that Omni reported no significant decline in its fish population. Maybe the department of environment in Omni hasn't find that the population of its fish has declined or it failed to report it. Besides, no significant decline doesn't mean there is no decline. Maybe the regulations of ban fishing within 10 miles of Omni has already showed that they cannot work efficiently to protect the fish in its own waters, let along to protect fish in Tria's waters.

Furthermore, even though the decline in fish population in Tria's water is the result of overfishing, the best way to restore the fish population may not be as the author asserts. There can be other ways which may even better suit the situation in Tria's water. Such as what I mentioned above to ban dumping life garbage and to ban fishing within an area of certain miles of Tria where most fish live may help.

To sum up, the argument lacks of evidence to persuade me that Tria should adopt Omni's regulations. The author should provide further information about the true cause of the decline in fish populations in Tria's water and result of a research it may concern.