131 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."
Word:489 Time: 59:31 Date:10-26
In this enviromental newsletter, the author recommends that Tria should adopt the regulations of Omni as an effective way protecting fish populations and marine wildlife from waning. To support this recommendation the author points that the regulations of Omni, which impede fish to be overfished, have contained the significant decline in fish populations. On the basis of this evidence the author infers that the decline of fish populations in Tria results from overfishing, not ever considered to be pollution. Careful examination of this supporting evidence, however, reveals that it lends little credible support to the author’s claim. First of all, the author commits a fallacy of fase analogy, because the author fails to consider the possible differences between Tria and Omni. It is entirely possible that they are in different geographical position,even in different hemisphere, which would bring about different factors that lead to decline in fish populations,likewise,the disparate climate conditon and the diversity of fish, could also cause the difference between the fish populations of Tria and Omni. If so,this fact would seriously weaken the author’s claim that the Tria should adopt the regulations of Omni. In the second place, the author groundlessly assume that the decline in fish populations in Tria’s waters bears some relation to overfish, yet, the author ignores a host of other possible explanations for the decline. Perhaps the decline in Tria was an aberration, and that in most other years Tria has not gone through this decline. Also, the decline might have been due entirely to the mass school of fish went elsewhere for spawning, or it is the very pollution that results in the descent of fish populations. Without ruling out all other possible explanations for the descendant fish populations in Tria, the author cannot convince me that the plight in Tria is triggered by overfishing. Thirdly, the author’s recommendation is based on the assumption that the regulations of Omni would in fact be more effective than Tria’s in controlling the decreasing fish populations,and there is no alternative means of containing the decline are available. However, the author fails to offer any firm evidence to substantiate this crucial assumption, it is highly possible means would more effective to solve the problem. Such as improving the water quality, retaining the diversity of different kinds of fish, and keeping polution coming from other place away. Without considering and ruling out these and other alternative means, the author cannot confidently conclude that it is the best way for Tria to reverse the quandary. In conclusion, the author’s argument is unpersuasive as it stands. To bolster it the author must show that whether both Tria and Omni has the similar natural condition, and undoubted evidences with regard to the decline of fish populations in Tria is caused by overfishing. To better assess the argument I would need to know there is no effective way for Tria to choose,and the regulations of Omni is the very solution.
1. 攻击题目中的错误类比
2. 攻击题目中的草率推广
3. 攻击结论的必要性
Beg for beating ^-^
[ 本帖最后由 timeup 于 2007-10-27 20:05 编辑 ] | 
发表于 2007-10-27 18:05:19
签到领寄托币
GO
转发
