argument131 有拍必回

ChunyanLi2005UID: 2124266

Argument131      共用时间：59分41秒     479 words

------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.'

结论：恢复鱼数目和保护T野生海洋生命的最好办法是放弃我们的规定采用O的。因为T地区很多鱼的数目前最近在下降，有人说是污染。但是O地区没有报告鱼群有明显下降。我们禁倒垃圾和近海20英里的探油，但不禁钓鱼。而O地区不仅禁我们禁的，还禁10英里内的钓鱼。很显然T地区鱼数的下降是因为过度捕渔。
（1）·前提，鱼数下降一定是因为过度捕捞。论者没有提供任何资料证明T地区的捕鱼使得鱼群下降，既没有提供有关渔民数量，也没有提供这次鱼群下降的同时是否捕鱼量在上升。所以这个前提不一定成立。
（2）·前提，鱼数下降不是因为污染。论者没有提供资料，证明近期T海域内水质没有发生变化，这样我们不能排除有污染存在，并导致了鱼群下降。虽然我们禁倒垃圾和20米的探油，但不排除垃圾仍在倒，油从20英里外的地方过来。
（3）·前提，我们和O地区情况完全一样。但是地区不同，海域的鱼群种类不同，都使得O地区的经验不一定适合我们。如果说O地区在近海十公里内鱼群很多，而T地区十公里内根本没有鱼，那么这样的措施没有帮助。 ·一定还有其他办法，不一定学人家嘛。干嘛非说最好。
结论：论者还应该进一 步收集资料，了解本地区鱼群下降的原因是什么。再做出决定。

------正文------
In this argument, the author points out that the decline in Tria's fish populations is the result of overfishing. To proof the conclusion, the author has give a comparison between Tria(T) and Omni(O), simply based on that both of them ban dumping and offshore oil drilling, only except ban fishing. At first glance, it seems reasonable. However, after further consideration, there are many flaws in the argument.

Above all, the author assumed that overfishing has caused the decline of fish population in T, is very doubtful. No substantial statistics about the number of the fisherfolks has been put out. It is possible that there are fewer fisherfolks in T than that in O. Also, no evidence has been put out to illustrate that fishing is increasing while the populations of T's fish are declining. So the author cannot assume overfishing has led to the decline of fish population in T, simply based on the facts which have so many flaws.

Secondly, simply mentioning the ban against dumping and offshore oil drilling within 20 miles of T, the author cannot sweeping the possibility that pollution has greatly affected the decline of T's fish population. Although government has set those rules, it does not mean that people have obeyed them completely. Maybe people in T or nearby still dumping and some bussinessman continue drilling offshore oil .  Therefore, pollution  is also probably the main causal of the decline of T's fish population .

Finally, the author who make a comparison between T and O based on showing several similarity simply, is hard to aprove that T and O is comparable. As no information and data can show that the weather, the terrain and the kind of fish, are all the same in two regions. The weather may be greatly changed in T these years for some fators, while that in O almost keeps the same. And the variational weather has killed many fish. Or the terrain of T varies from that of O, where fish are more likely to live around within 10 miles. Maybe more fish or are likely living far from T. Still, the kind of fishes are different in O and T. In O, there are more fish whose habit is likely  to live near Island, while probably in T, there are more fish whose habit is like to live far from Island. Those facts are all very likely to cause the decline in T's fish population.

Taking into those alalysis above, the flaws in the argument are obvious. As a result, the conclusion made by the author, that  T should adopt the regulations of O, is unacceptable. To best restore T's fish populations and to protect all of T's marine wildlife, firstly we may should take more survey to get the main causal of that phenomenon. Additionally, we should strenghten the ban against pollution and manage it more strictly.

[ 本帖最后由 ChunyanLi2005 于 2006-2-8 21:29 编辑 ]

11yaoyaoUID: 177037

https://bbs.gter.net/viewthre ... &extra=page%3D1

dinddind2003UID: 196353

第一段不要批，看完全题就应该知道鱼变少是因为污染并不是题目支持的观点。

感觉你第二段只是从作者忽略了一个可能性入手，这样的反驳不是很有力。起码也要说忽略了几个可能性吧。

第三段还行，你限时没？修改没？、

这篇我正好最近写过，发上来看看吧
https://bbs.gter.net/viewthre ... &extra=page%3D1

[ 本帖最后由 dinddind2003 于 2006-2-9 11:20 编辑 ]