Argument131寄托4人组Aug12作业

哥哥家有二师兄UID: 2124390

131The 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."


提纲：
1．        首先从前者本地原因来讲，污染的因素并未完全排除，1）法规可能没有认真执行2）意外事故可能发生，导致鱼类大规模减少
2．        在探究鱼类减少原因上，两地false analogy，1）两地政策执行力度可能不同2）虽然前者渔业并未被禁，但可能由于当地渔业本身就不发达，渔民的数量不多，而后者可能正因为渔业过于发达，不得不制定法规加以控制3）两地地理位置不同海水温度不同，从而海水中的mammals的数量不同，他们可能把鱼吃了
3．        即使能够采取后者的措施控制鱼的数量减少，并不见得可以保证所有埔乳动物都可以得到很好的保护，因为他们可能生活的空间大，10英里可能对他们太小
------摘要------
作者：寄托家园作文版普通用户     共用时间：32分43秒     419 words / 612 after polish
从2005年8月12日11时5分到2005年8月12日11时37分
------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 arguer concludes that the decline of the fish population in Troi is due to overfishing instead of pollution. He further observes that by abandoning the present regulations and adopting those of Omni, Tria's fish populations could be restored and all of Tria's marine wildlife could be protected. With a close examination, however, the argument is unconvincing for several critical flaws.


First, the author has not ruled out the possibility that pollution could be a cause of the decline of fish population. It is true that Tria has set regulations to ban dumping and offshore oil drilling, but the arguer provides no evidence to show how well those regulations have been enforced. On the one hand, if those regulations are strictly followed, the decline of the fish population would have little to do with pollution. But if not, dumping and offshore oil drilling may still be serious which will have a direct impact on the fish population. On the other hand, even though those policies could be strictly followed, there may still be accidents like large-scale oil leakage that happened within the few years, resulting the decline of fish population.

In addition, the arguer commits the fallacy of false analogy in searching out the causes of the decline of fish population. First, though there are only some minor differences between the regulations, the enforcement of those regulations may differ significantly. It is possible that Omni's regulations have been strongly implemented with enough governmental support, and yet those of Troi fail. Second, though the former has not banned fishing, it  may not be the cause of the decline. Possibly the fishing industry in Troi is not well-developed and neither the number of fishermen nor the scale of fishing could exert a great influence on the fish population. While the latter bans fishing simply because the fishing industry is so advanced that they pose threatens the ecological living of the fishes. Third, the author has not cleared the possibility the decline of fishes is due to the mammals. In former one bans dumping and offshore oil drilling within 20 miles and the latter is only within 10 miles, thus providing a different living area for the mammals. The mammals in Troi may quite surpass those in Omni. More mammals may consume more fishes and this may be another factor for the decline of the fish population in Troi. And yet the author simply claims the regulations in the latter are far more effective than the former.


Finally, granted that the Tria island could protect its fish populations by adopting the exact regulations of Omni, there is no guarantee that such a measure could protect all of Tria's marine wildlife. The fishes and the mammals may require different living areas and the mammals may need a lot more to ensure their healthy growth. At present, the regulations in Troi ban dumping and offshore oil driling in 20 miles and the latter in 10 miles, if both are changed to 10 miles, this would only ensure 10 miles’ clean living environment for the mammals. Then it would be unfair to say all the marine wildlife has been properly protected.


In sum, the conclusion and the proposal in the argument is invalid and misleading. To make it more logically acceptable, the author must provide enough evidence to rule out the possibility that pollution could the cause of the decline of the fish population. Moreover, more information on the fishing industry of the two places is needed to find out if Troi could copy the regulations in Omni. Additional measures have to be offered to ensure the prosperity of both the fishes and other mammals.

[ Last edited by 哥哥家有二师兄 on 2005-8-12 at 18:20 ]