argument131【0906G ANap Hand 作文互改小组】第二次作业 by comb300

comb300UID: 2443633

131The 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."

--------

The author concludes that Tria should adopt Omni’s regulation to reduce the influence of fish population decreasing. At first glance, the author’s reasoning seems to be appealing, while clearly examining the reasoning, we may find that it is unconvincing. The argument contains several facets that are questionable.

The author claims the fishing population degrading in Tria's water is overfishing but pollution. However, fishing might not be the problem, the difference of distance between two areas might cause the situation as there is not any regulation about dumping or offshore oil drilling 10 miles away from the Omni Island shore which might cause serious potential influence to the fish population within 10 miles distance, because pollution could move from place to place along with water.

The author represents that the best way to restore Tria's fish populations and to protect all of Tria's marine wildlife is to abandon its current regulation and adopt Omni's. Nonetheless, the evidence from this article could not make such conclusion. Firstly, the author ignore the difference between areas, there is not evidence shows the two areas are comparable. If there are a huge among of fish in Omni and very little in Tria, statistically, even Tria only loss few fish because of the climate changing or been eaten by predators, the population will degrade dramatically, but it is an irrelevant situation of the regulation. Secondly, the author does not represent the time that the calculation was taken place. If the statistic of Tria is collected in ten years time but Omni's is only few weeks, then the time difference could cause these the influence which is not relevant with the regulation as well. Thirdly, the author represents that Tria should switch its regulation into Omni's as its the best solution whereas there are hundreds and thousands of areas has similar regulation around the world, so might be both regulation in these two places might have flaws. Therefore, it is an exclusive conclusion which should be proved by further evidence.

To sum up, the author does not provide sufficient evidence to have the conclusion; more evidences are still needed to make the argument intact.

musicdwhUID: 2274248

本人的能力有限，可能找到问题，不足，亦或己找的根本就不是问题，望谅解！
优点  swith 这个词用的好，

缺点
1.整体的感觉，第一段与最后一段的内容少了一点。你的第二段要是与第三段一样多的话，比较完美。
2.你的第二段我看过两遍明白了，建议，situation后面加个定语或从句，在which 后面加个”，“这是为了后面的because.你的这个长句真的不错，我学会了，呵呵。后面来个小的总结。perfect
3.Firstly, the author ignore(s) exclusive conclusion 这个我不太明白，我查了一下没想明白。