Argument131 【0906G ANap Hand 作文互改小组】第二次作业 by zju-jenny 请猛拍

jenny11235UID: 2585428

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: 184          TIME: 01:10:00          DATE: 2008-12-28 21:50:35

提纲：1. 保护鱼类与保护海洋动物并不一致
      2. 导致鱼类数量下降有很多因素，限制污染的范围不同可能使污染对鱼类种群的影响不同
      3 两个地区不能简单比较
Simply believing Tria's water pollution as the main cause for decline of fish population, the writer suggests that residents in Tria should adopt regulations of Omni to recover populations of Tria's fish and marine wildlife. The argument might be somehow reasonable; but carefully weighed, it still contains several unconvincing assumptions and logical fallacies.

Firstly, the writer assumes that residents must abandon current rules in order to protect fish and marine wildlife better. However, even if we admit that they are helpful to restore the population of fish in Tria, there is still no statics to show quality change of marine wildlife in these two places. Perhaps, marine wildlife in Tria is increasing while it is decreasing in Omni. If this assumption is established, adopting the regulations of Omni might cause decline of marine, as the habits of the two creatures are apparently different.

Secondly, the writer simply states that due to banning fishing, the decrease of fish population of Omni isn’t apparent and then makes a conclusion that overfishing is the main reason causing degeneration of Tria's fish. However, she ignores the distinctive forbidding ranges from the seashore, which are 20 miles and 10 miles respectively. It is entirely possible that because of the different forbidding range, water pollution has completely different influences on the fish populations. Additionally, the author provides no explaination to fish species of the two regions. Lacking such evidence, we could presume that fish in Omni have stronger resistance to water pollution than those in Tria. Without ruling out above possibilities, the writer hardly make us perceive her conclusion that overfishing mainly contributes to fish decline.

Thirdly, the writer's naive assumption that the rules of Omni must apply to Tria is incredible. As the common sense says, different conditions produce different results. Without providing the more information of the two regions, we cannot exclude possibilities such as residents having distinct habits, different environment conditions and so on. Any of the above possibilities could make the regulations of Omni failure. For example, people in Trio live on fishing, the main income source for them. Forbidding fishing in sanctuary definitely reducing their income and probably declining their  life level. So people in Trio might oppose the regulations.

In conclusion, the argument is indefensible as it stands. The writer must provide more information of the two region's background, such as people's habits instead of just comparing the different contents of the two regulations. Moreover, she should take other factors that influence the population of fish into consideration and should ponder the influence taken by different forbidding ranges.  

irvine666UID: 2575525

Simply believing Tria's water pollution as the main cause for decline of fish population, the writer suggests that residents in Tria should adopt regulations of Omni to recover populations of Tria's fish and marine wildlife. The argument might be somehow reasonable;(这句话应该是文化差异,咱们喜欢婉转一点，但是老美更喜欢开门见山) but carefully weighed, it still contains several unconvincing assumptions and logical fallacies.

Firstly, the writer assumes that residents must abandon current rules in order to protect fish and marine wildlife better. （这句话和开头那段重复了，既然已经开始论证，就没有必要讲作者的观点了。）However, even if we admit that they are helpful to restore the population of fish in Tria,(你看突然冒出来的这句话是讲别人的政策有效会怎么怎么样，但是如果说原来的政策其实更好只不过作者的调查不足才得出鱼类数量下降这么个假的论据，不就显得你这个让步有漏洞了么？所以这句前面最好应该加一句或者几句说明作者给的数据不足以证明原来的政策不好，然后在让步说即使原来的政策真的不好，那么用了别人的政策怎么怎么样。就严密多了) there is still no statics to show quality change of marine wildlife in these two places. (恩，讨论生存的质量，感觉是个很新颖的破题点啊，因为是protection of marine mammals 所以数量并不代表一切) Perhaps, marine wildlife in Tria is increasing while it is decreasing in Omni ( 根据你的上一句话，这句的主语应该是the quality of marine wildlife ). If this assumption is established, adopting the regulations of Omni might cause decline of marine, as the habits of the two creatures are apparently different. （这句根上面讨论的海洋哺乳动物的生存质量问题又不怎么搭边了，你看这句的核心是as the habits…,  habits怎么和上面一句的quality相关呢，思维跳跃太大就会出逻辑不严密得错误。）

Secondly, the writer simply states that due to banning fishing, the decrease of fish population of Omni isn’t apparent and then makes a conclusion that overfishing is the main reason causing degeneration of Tria's fish. (这句也有凑字数的嫌疑) However, she ignores the distinctive forbidding ranges from the seashore, which are 20 miles and 10 miles respectively. It is entirely possible that because of the different forbidding range, water pollution has completely different influences on the fish populations. ( 这句话,没有such as就是一句空话，换言之就是不具体，没有说服力。你想argument的作者们，再怎么都有些survey或者evidence支持论点都被我们批的体无完肤,你这句话连evidence或者case都没有怎么能讲得通呢? ) Additionally, the author provides no explaination to fish species of the two regions. Lacking such evidence, we could presume that fish in Omni have stronger resistance to water pollution than those in Tria. Without ruling out above possibilities, the writer hardly make us perceive her conclusion that overfishing mainly contributes to fish decline. (这段有非常严重的逻辑问题，根据你的第一句话和最后一句话，你是要批作者的 declining is due to overfishing 那么你所陈述的其他可能性，必须要和关键词，decline,overfishing关联.姑且认为你第一个理由: 海域面积不同，所以海洋污染程度无法类比，是和decline有关联的,那么第二个理由:鱼类有更强的抵抗力,和decline overfishing 都没有关系，我知道你想说鱼类抵抗力高，所以因污染而死亡的少，但是你的文章中第二个理由里面并没有这句话，这会造成逻辑漏洞。不能想当然的认为，读者们会理解你的潜在意思，该讲全的就一定不能省略.)

Thirdly, the writer's naive assumption that the rules of Omni must apply to Tria is incredible. As the common sense says, different conditions produce different results. Without providing the more information of the two regions, we cannot exclude possibilities such as residents having distinct habits, different environment conditions and so on　（其实你这两个such as　的可能性，都是上一段已经详细说过的了，再说一遍感觉很罗嗦）. Any of the above possibilities could make the regulations of Omni failure. For example, people in Trio live on fishing, the main income source for them. Forbidding fishing in sanctuary definitely reducing their income and probably declining their  life level. So people in Trio might oppose the regulations.　(额 这个偏的严重了,怎么会和living standard of people挂上的,argu只要你讨论对海洋动物的保护而已阿)

In conclusion, the argument is indefensible as it stands. The writer must provide more information of the two region's background, such as people's habits　(其实你既然已经想到了people’s habits，最好能够详细的说一下，habits怎么影响动物保护的。比如可能TI是一个旅游岛，人们喜欢坐着快艇飞驰在水面上，鱼都被吓跑了之类的，比你讲的人们的生活水平要切题多了) instead of just comparing the different contents of the two regulations. Moreover, she should take other factors that influence the population of fish into consideration and should ponder the influence taken by different forbidding ranges.  

从全文的逻辑关联上来看,第二段讲的是采用了OI的政策不一定会在TI好用,第三段讲的是鱼类数量减少和过度捕捞无关,第四段讲的是TI和OI完全不能类比(从而仍然证明OI的政策不一定在TI好用)
看出问题了么?
1.段落之间各自为战,没有任何关联,排比,递进,转折,让步等等都没有,就是简单的放在一起
2.3段论述实际上是2段，不说2，4段的论述基本就是一件事，3，4段之间仍然有很多地方是重复论证。
3.每一段没有核心句子，让人无法第一时间把握到你到底要讲的是什么.

从以上的分析来看，作者的逻辑思维还需要多加练习.(批的狠了点，实在是抱歉呀...ps:居然批了快2个小时,晚上的效率还真是差)

[ 本帖最后由 irvine666 于 2008-12-29 02:06 编辑 ]

goingeastUID: 2439824

批的好！模范