Argument131 【四人行小组】第8次作业 小白

9510638UID: 2650153

In order to find out the exact reason of declining fish populations in Tria, the arguer compares the regulations of Tria and Omni. Noticing the difference in banning fishing between Tria and Omni, the arguer rules out the possibility of pollution hastily and concludes that the overfishing is responsible. Therefore the letter recommends copying the Omni's regulation without more investigations to protect all marine wildlife including fish. However, the argument has several flaws as it stands.
First and foremost, the arguer fails to take into account other alternatives which may explain the difference of fish pollution (population )between Tria and Omni. Banning offshore oil drilling within 20 miles of Tria does not denote that such activity in areas 20 miles away from the island will not pollute the sanctuary and leads to decreased fish population. Moreover, it is possible that the regulation of banning fishing in Omni is not effective, its fish population does not decline simply because the island releases fish fry regularly to supplement the fish resource in Omni.(这和它的禁令无效似乎没多大关系） Therefore, without more accurate evidence about Tria and Omni, the conclusion that it is overfishing rather than pollution that results in the declining of fish populations is unsubstantiated.（这一段感觉moreover后面的内容总体上来说对整段的论证作用不大）
Given that the overfishing is responsible for the decreased fish population in Tria, it is impossible to apply the same regulation of Omni to Tria confidently before further investigation. Chances are, most of fishing activities in Omni have to be conducted within 10 miles of the island thus the regulation of banning is effective in Omni. Whereas it is likely that the majority of fish farmer in Tria prefer to fishing 10 miles away from their island so the regulation of Omni cannot stop the overfishing and declining fish populations in Tria. Therefore without more comparison about the two islands, the copy of regulation does not indicate a copy of sufficiency.(感觉这一段的论证有点不够充分）
Last but not the least, even though it is still a good choice to copy the regulation of Omni after serious comparison, the measure cannot guarantee to protect all of Tria's marine wildlife as the letter claims. Perhaps some marine wildlife is not suffering from the fishing but other threats such as climate change, erosion of the island and so forth. The regulation may make sure that the fish population will remain still at a satisfactory level, but the protection of other kind of marine wildlife need case-by-case measures depending on what threatens their lives.
As I presented above, the argument is well-stated but not well-reasoned. In order to find out the exact reason of the declining fish population in Tria, the arguer should consider more alternatives and make a overall comparison between the two islands. Before constituting the measures to restore the fish population, more investigations about the two islands as well as valid reasoning are necessary.（开头和结尾都很好，整体感觉论证的比较透彻，语言把握的恰当好处，很是羡慕~~）

rjyuuUID: 2591508

首先想说，写得真得很好。
没有俗套的生搬硬套。浑然天成而条理清晰。用词丰富精辟 阿~~委实羡慕。
对不起阿。我已经努力找了。小妹实在水平有限。
In order to find out the exact reason of declining fish populations in Tria, the arguer compares the regulations of Tria and (with?)Omni. Noticing the difference in banning fishing between Tria and Omni, the arguer rules out the possibility of pollution hastily and concludes that the(the?) overfishing is responsible. Therefore the letter recommends copying the Omni's regulation without more investigations to protect all marine wildlife including fish. However, the argument has several flaws as it stands.
First and foremost, the arguer fails to take into account other alternatives which may explain the difference of fish pollution between Tria and Omni. Banning offshore oil drilling within 20 miles of Tria does not denote that such activity in areas 20 miles away from the island will not pollute the sanctuary and leads to decreased fish population. Moreover, it is possible that the regulation of banning fishing in Omni is not effective, its fish population does not decline simply because the island releases fish fry regularly to supplement the fish resource in Omni. Therefore, without more accurate evidence about Tria and Omni, the conclusion that it is overfishing rather than pollution that results in the declining of fish populations is unsubstantiated.
Given that the overfishing is responsible for the decreased fish population in Tria, it is impossible to apply the same regulation of Omni to Tria confidently before further investigation. Chances are, most of fishing activities in Omni have to be conducted within 10 miles of the island thus the regulation of banning is effective in Omni. Whereas it is likely that the majority of fish farmer in Tria prefer to fishing 10 miles away from their island so the regulation of Omni cannot stop the overfishing and declining fish populations in Tria. Therefore without more comparison about(between) the two islands, the copy of regulation does not indicate a copy of sufficiency.
Last but not the least, even though it is still a good choice to copy the regulation of Omni after serious comparison, the measure cannot guarantee to(vt.及物) protect all of Tria's marine wildlife as the letter claims. Perhaps some marine wildlife is not suffering from the fishing but other threats such as climate change, erosion of the island and so forth. The regulation may make sure that the fish population will remain still at a satisfactory level, but the protection of other kind of marine wildlife need case-by-case measures depending on what threatens their lives.
As I presented above, the argument is well-stated but not well-reasoned. In order to find out the exact reason of the declining fish population in Tria, the arguer should consider more alternatives and make a overall comparison between the two islands. Before constituting the measures to restore the fish population, more investigations about the two islands as well as valid reasoning are necessary.
然后...决定将楼主的文章粘切到范文簿中...
P.S 现在小组还招人么？