argument131 熊熊互拍

星星之火UID：2107154

Argument131  第11篇 让砖头来得更猛烈些吧！
------题目------
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.'
------正文------
In this argument the author concludes that Tria Island should abandon its old regulations and instead make the same one with Omni. To substantiate his conclusion, the author cites a fact that the number of the fish in Tria's waters is still declining after they take some measure to prevent pollution. Additionally, the author points out that the regulations of Omni seem to be effective. After a careful examination, however, I find this argument is problematic in several respects.

First of all, the author's conclusion relies on the assumption that no factors other than the overfishing in Tria's waters caused the decline of its fish populations. But the author fails to provide us any firm evidence. We are not informed how long the regulations have been carried out, and how well it was performed by some concerned companies. If some companies continue dumping and offshore oil drilling for the purpose of getting more profits, the decline might be a result of pollution. Even if the pollution has been prevented effectively, common sense tells me that it needs a long time to reverse the trend of decline because of a serious damage to the balance of biosphere by pollution not long ago. What is more, we would also take the influence of different seasons into consideration. As a matter of fact, some fishes have a habit of traveling somewhere else in specific seasons which probably leads to a short-term decline of the fish populations. Therefore, the decline may not be a result of overfishing.

Secondly, the author fails to provide evidence that the regulations established in Omni is actually effective. We are not informed the difference between the number of fish population before and of the present. Common sense tells me that even if the regulations are not effective, the number of fish populations would not be changed in a short time. So without offering any firm evidence that the regulations result in a satisfying effect, the author cannot convince me that this regulation is a good one and should be learned by other islands.

Finally, the author too hastily concludes that establishing regulations of Omni instead of their own will surely restore Tria's fish populations and protect all of Tria's marine wildlife. Perhaps the regulations of Omni is not affirmative enough, and it is necessary to ban people fishing within more than 10 miles offshore. Even these regulations would lead to an effective result to some extent, we are not sure about whether some other measures are necessary. Common sense tells me that once the balance of bio-sphere is broken down, some more affirmative action must be taken rather than simply prevent pollution and fishing.

In conclusion, this argument is logically flawed and unconvincing as it stands. To strengthen it, the author would have to provide more clear evidence that the regulations of Omni are effective and suitable for Tria Island. Additionally, it is also useful to know if some other measures are necessary.

[ Last edited by staralways on 2005-8-8 at 13:37 ]