argument131 【jet小组】第十次作业

dreamstringUID: 2389201

TOPIC: 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: 425          TIME: 00:30:00          DATE: 2008-2-22 13:25:26

This argument draws a conclusion that the decline in fish populations in Tria's water is not pollution but overfishing, and the best way to restore Tria's fish population and protect marine wildlife is to abandon their marine sanctuary and adopt those of Omni. To substantiate it, the arguer cites evidence which seems to show that the regulations on Omni Island protect its fish populations better. However, a careful consideration will show how groundless this conclusion is.

First of all, the arguer claims that banning dumping, offshore oil drilling in the regulations on Tria Island are restricted within 20miles. Yet in Omni’s situation, there is no restriction. Thus the analogy is lack of representative. Maybe the declination of fish population in Tria’s waters is caused by pollution, since the regulation is restricted in Tria’s waters while there is no restriction in Omni’s waters.

Secondly, the arguer fails to provide statistic data to prove that the declination of fish populations in Omni is less than Tria. On contrary, what the arguer offers is a vague description of the declination. It is possible that through careful survey, the declination of fish population in Tria is not more than Omni, since the arguer simply claims that Omni reports no significant decline in its fish populations. If the arguer can not provide statistic data to prove his argument, I can not be convinced that the arguer's conclusion is rational.

What is more, even though the declination of fish population in Omni is less than Tria, simply transplant Omni's regulation is lack of carefully cogitation. Whether the same regulation would lead to similar consequences is dubious. It is possible that the situation in Tria's waters and climate and other factors are distinctive with Omni, thus it will cause that Omni's regulation is not apt to Tria. Therefore, the aim that to restore Tria's fish populations and protect marine wildlife might not turn to reality.

In addition, to claim that the reason to the declination in fish populations in Tria's waters is overfishing is too hasty. The arguer fails to consider each factor which would influence the fish populations. There are many factors still exist, such as the temperature of the waters, the climate in the area, the amount of the food of the fish and marine wildlife, and the like. If the arguer can not consider the factors comprehensively, I do not think the argument is rational.

In sum, the argument is full of flaws and the reasoning is not logical. To improve it, the arguer should consider every aspect of the difference of regulations and situations in the two places, and the factors which would influence the fish populations.

zhxj1985UID: 2353169

TOPIC: 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: 425          TIME: 00:30:00          DATE: 2008-2-22 13:25:26

This argument draws a conclusion that the decline in fish populations in Tria's water is not pollution but overfishing, and the best way to restore Tria's fish population and protect marine wildlife is to abandon their marine sanctuary and adopt those of Omni. To substantiate it, the arguer cites evidence which seems to show that the regulations on Omni Island protect its fish populations better. However, a careful consideration will show how groundless this conclusion is.

First of all, the arguer claims that banning dumping, offshore oil drilling in the regulations on Tria Island are restricted within 20miles. Yet in Omni’s situation, there is no restriction（也有限制啊，而且多了pollution一项）. Thus the analogy is lack of representative. Maybe the declination of fish population in Tria’s waters is caused by pollution, since the regulation is restricted in Tria’s waters while there is no restriction in Omni’s waters（这种方法我在北美范文中看到说要慎用(北美范文精讲A 6)）.

Secondly, the arguer fails to provide statistic data to prove that the declination of fish populations in Omni is less than Tria. On contrary, what the arguer offers is a vague description of the declination. It is possible that through careful survey, the declination of fish population in Tria is not more than （that of） Omni, since the arguer simply claims that Omni reports no significant decline in its fish populations. If the arguer can not provide statistic data to prove his argument, I can not be convinced that the arguer's conclusion is rational.

What is more, even though the declination of fish population in Omni is less than (that of 我感觉应该加上这两个词)Tria, simply transplanting Omni's regulations is lack of carefully cogitation. Whether the same regulations would lead to similar consequences is dubious. It is possible that the situation in Tria's waters and climate and other factors are distinctive with Omni, thus it will cause that Omni's regulation is not apt to Tria. Therefore, the aim that to restore Tria's fish populations and protect marine wildlife might not turn to reality.

In addition, to claim that the reason to the declination in fish populations in Tria's waters is overfishing is too hasty. The arguer fails to consider each factor which would influence the fish populations. There are many factors still exist, such as the temperature of the waters, the climate in the area, the amount of the food of the fish and marine wildlife, and the like. If the arguer can not consider the factors comprehensively, I do not think the argument is rational.（个人感觉把这段放在前面，后来说transplanting 不好是不是更好些）

In sum, the argument is full of flaws and the reasoning is not logical. To improve it, the arguer should consider every aspect of the difference of regulations and situations in the two places, and the other factors which would influence the fish populations.
我觉得作者强调overfishing 导致鱼群数量减少 和 O Island regulations的好处，应该在这两方面多展开写，特别是overfishing 那部分。