argument131 Spring-第1次作业

林周孟UID: 2341714

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:508      Time:2 hours
    The speaker claims that in order to restore Tria's fish populations and to protect all of Tria's marine wildlife ,the best way for Tria is to abandon  regulations of its own while adopt those of Omni,whose regulations not only ban dumping, offshore oil drilling,,but also ban fishing within 10 miles of Omni.To support this claim the speaker points out several evidence involving the differences about regulations and fish populations between Tria and Omni.However,through careful scrutiny of the mere fact of these evidences,we can find it logically flawed in several respects.
    To begin with,the argument depends on an insufficient evidence that might be called false analogy between Tria and Omin.The argument unfairly assumes that if Tria adopts the regulation of Omni,it can achieve the same goal with Omni in keeping fish populations.However,the argument overlooks the possible difference ,which includes the fish population of their nature,the conditions of water and geography, the number of fishing population ,and so forth,between Tria and Omni.However,it is entirely possible that the above situations between them are totally different,even  there existing a possibility that from historical record of government the fish population of Tria is always far less than that of Omni due to their difference of conditions of natural geography.If this is the case ,perhaps whatever regulations Tria chooses,it can’t realize its goal. Unless providing adequate evidence of the above situations,the argument can’t draw any sound recommendation based on the insufficient assumption.
    In addition,the argument relies on the other assumption that adopting the regulations of Omni is the best way for Tria to restore Tria's fish populations and to protect all of Tria's marine wildlife,which I think is unwarranted.It is entirely possible that there exists other means ,which can also achieve the same result,or perhaps a better result.For example,perhaps the desired increase can be achieved if Tria instead reduce the pollution of water of Tria,or shorten the time of fishing in a year,or limit the size of fish that can be fished.Without making a comparation of regulations involving those of Omni and others,or considering and ruling out the above and other alternative means,the recommendation is unconvincing.
    Morover,the argument depends on the additional unsubstantiated assumption that the decline in fish populations in Tria's waters is the result of overfishing,not pollution.However,neither dose the argument provide  evidence about the number of fishing population and the quantity of fishing,nor does it mentions whether the quantity of fishing is continually increasing during the period of the declining of fish population of Tria.Given that Tria has regulations that ban dumping and offshore oil drilling within 20 miles of Tria,yet,we can never overlook the possibility that the pollution of oil and garbage can spread from areas 20 miles away,the existence of which may be the chief reason that leads to the declining of fish population of Tria.
    In conclusion,the argument lacks adequate evidence and therefore is unconvincing as it stands.To strengthen it the author should collect more information which involves the exact reasons that result in the declining of fish population of Tria ,the differences between Tria and Omni,and so forth.

[ 本帖最后由 林周孟 于 2007-10-25 21:31 编辑 ]

lifeng_913UID: 2397925

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:508      Time:2 hours
    The speaker claims that in order to restore Tria's fish populations and to protect all of Tria's marine wildlife ,the best way for Tria is to abandon  regulations of its own while adopt those of Omni,whose regulations not only ban dumping, offshore oil drilling, but also ban fishing within 10 miles of Omni.(good rewriting of the newsletter!) To support this claim （最好不用claim,前面已经用过了，可以考虑conclusion,assertion ）the speaker points out several evidences involving the differences about regulations and fish populations between Tria and Omni. （从involving以后感觉比较别扭，读起来不很顺口，因为作者别未说明二者的不同而是在进行差异范围的推广，也正式我们要攻击的方面之一，所以可以直接删除involving后面的内容）However,through careful scrutiny of the mere fact of these evidences,we can find it logically flawed in several respects.
    To begin with,the argument depends on an insufficient evidence that might be called false analogy between the situations of  fish populations in Tria and Omin.The argument unfairly assumes that if Tria adopts the regulation of Omni,it can achieve the same goal with Omni in keeping fish populations. However, the argument overlooks the possible difference ,which includes the fish populations of their nature, the conditions of water and geography(用水源和地理显得不太合适，可以考虑使用洋流ambary), the number of fishing population(没看懂) ,and so forth，(删除between Tria and Omni.)（删除However,不是转折关系）it is entirely possible that the above situations between them are totally different, even  there existing a possibility that from historical record of government the fish population of Tria is always far less than that of Omni due to their difference of conditions of natural geography. If this is the case , （删除perhaps）whatever regulations Tria chooses, it can’t realize its goal. Unless providing adequate evidencesto eliminate the situations mentioned above, the argument(换成speaker似乎更好，因为前面一直用的是 speaker) can’t draw any sound recommendation based on the insufficient（应用unsubstantiated,应为该假设是未被证明的） assumption.
    In addition, the argument relies on the other（another）unwarranted assumption that adopting the regulations of Omni is the best way for Tria to restore Tria's fish populations and to protect all of Tria's marine wildlife,(删除which I think is unwarranted. )Without convictive evidences to support the assumption above,it is entirely possible that there exists other (不用means，意为手段方法，贬义)methods which can also achieve the same (不用result)goal, or perhaps a better result. For example, perhaps the desired increase can be achieved if Tria would replace reducing the pollution of water of Tria or shortening the time of fishing per year, or limit the size of fish that can be fished to the original. Without making a comparation between the regulations of Omni and others, considering and the possible assumptions above and ruling out other alternative measures, the recommendation is still unconvincing.
    Morover, the argument depends on the additional unsubstantiated assumption that the decline in fish populations in Tria's waters is the result of overfishing,(怎么都只有这样一种段首句啊？太单调了吧) not pollution. However,（ neither dose the argument provide  evidence about the number of fishing population（是什么意思？） and the quantity of fishing（也不知道是什么意思）, nor does it mentions whether the quantity of fishing is continually increasing during the period of the declining of fish population of Tria.）（不好意思，这句话我没太读懂，感觉不太顺口，麻烦你自己再读一下，看是否合适吧。） Given that Tria has regulations that ban dumping and offshore oil drilling within 20 miles of Tria, yet, we can never overlook the possibility that the pollution of oil and garbage can spread from areas 20 miles away, the existence of which may be the chief reason that leads to the declining of fish population of Tria.（与上一段论证pollution的影响是重复的，可以将之作为一种可能性假设出现在上一段落中。）
    In conclusion, the argument lacks adequate evidences to support the speaker’s assertion ,therefore,it is unconvincing as it stands. To strengthen it, the author should collect more information about which involves the exact reasons that result in the declining of fish population of Tria , the differences between Tria and Omni, and so forth.（结尾稍显不足，所提出的建议不是很足，可考虑改写一下）

本文中使用频率较高的词汇主要是howeve，involve, and so forth.但用however是要注意前后是不是转折关系，involve我很少用，觉得很不顺口，好象不是包含关系，而且看过的文章中也很少用这个词; and so forth尽量不用吧。

本文还有几个逻辑漏洞可以攻击，主要比较容易攻击的就是The author unfairly assumes that the measures taken to protect the fish can protect all of Tria’s marine wildlife是错误的概念推广，即逻辑范围的错误.

没有颜色啊 那把附件上传一下吧,用红笔修的.

[ 本帖最后由 lifeng_913 于 2007-10-27 21:12 编辑 ]