argument131【0906G ANap Hand 作文互改小组】第二次作业 by irvine666

irvine666UID: 2575525

拼写检查完成,其他的未改,这篇思路明显顺多了,虽然还是经常卡在造句子上...
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: 516          TIME: 00:45:00          DATE: 2008/12/28 10:17:54

提纲:
1.没有证据表明鱼类在tira数量大减,可能它们只是迁徙
2.即使真的数量减少,也没有证据表明只跟overfishing有关
3.两地之间没有可比性,除开措施以外还有很多其他原因

In the argument, the author suggest the Tria Island (TI)  to take the same regulations which seem effective in certain marine mammal’s protection in Omni Island. Nonetheless, to my understanding, the statement is not cogent.

First of all, the author overlooks a possibility that the decline of fish populations may due to other reasons that the local regulations cannot deal with. Maybe there is a habit that the fish of TI migrate to other water areas to breed, and it is the particular season they have to leave the TI for propagating when the survey begins to conduct. On the other hand, an imminent intense nature tragedy may drive the fish away from their habitat. Perhaps they flee away the TI to evade an impending nature catastrophe such as the hurricane, the undersea volcano eruption or the bethel earthquake. These possibilities, either self-habit of the fish or nature disaster, are all beyond the regulations of TI. So, no persuasive evidence is provided to sustain the conclusion: the fish populations are declining.

Furthermore, even if the decreasing of fish populations is true, no evidence is furnished to declare that it is because of overfishing, not pollution. As we all known, many other reasons will lead to pollution except for dumping and offshore oil drilling. For example, possibly, the TI is located on a main sail route in the sea, a large number of tank ships go through this area every day and the Noise Pollution scares away plenty of fish. Even though the pollution is not exist in the entironment, the abrupt climate change may cause the declining numbers of fish, Such as the occurrence of El Nino, which is due to the global temperature raise, and can't be solved by simple regulations. Without strong evidence showing, the arguer just cannot persuade me in this regard.

Finally, the author hastily suggests us to copy the regulation of OI's, which sounds rational on the success of marine mammals' protection. However, on the one hand, no evidence is illustrated to make it clear that the circumstances of the two islands are similar. Perhaps it is rainy in OI while it is drouthy in TI, consequently the fish lives a better life in OI than in TI. Oversimply copying is not a wise decision. On the other hand, the OI establishes a 10 miles circle of the marine sanctuary,  while it is 20 miles in the TI. if TI adopt the steps, which means to abandon the fish outside 10 miles, the fish populations would reduced sharply and the ambience surrounded in the TI would be destroyed a lot, which probably resulting in a tragedy.

As is mentioned above, more evidences should be held out to sustain the conclusion, such as the differences in the entironment and the ambiences around of two islands. besides, more persuasive cases of the protection of marine mammals  are required to show that copying the regulations of OI is necessary and effective, as well as the essential changes in the regulations to make the regulations adapt the situation of the TI.

stupidken2oUID: 2541049

这篇感觉无砖可拍...怎么办？

irvine666UID: 2575525

刚扫了一遍argu精华区,看了师徒大师的帖子,发现我的argu还停留在最低级的层次上...
我自己拍自己几砖:
1.语法错误...上来第一句就有错,是effective on...看来我有必要记点模板了
2.很多东西依然只是作者的想法,我一概归到TI的措施当中去了,例如说那个厄尔尼诺现象的时候,其实应该是beyond the view of the author.
3.正如精华区里面说的,"没有证据表明"这种说法,其实太笼统了,以后尽量不用no evidence that这种,转而研究较为具体的错误.

stupidken2oUID: 2541049

我更低呢，层次。。。

stupidken2oUID: 2541049

开始看老外的125作文，先吸收吸收精华