Argument131 (gogogo提前交了)

neverstopcowUID: 2149686

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 over fishing, 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."


Tria岛的海洋生物禁猎区是用来保护某些海洋哺乳动物的。它禁止在Tria20英里以内倾倒废物和近海采油，但捕鱼并不禁止。当前Tria水域的很多种鱼类数量都在下降，这种现象被认为是污染造成的。相比之下，Omni岛的海洋生物禁猎区禁止倾倒废物、近海采油和在Omni10英里以内捕鱼，Omni没有上报任何鱼类数量的显著下降。显然，Tria水域鱼类数量的下降是过度捕鱼而不是污染造成的。因此，回复Tria鱼类数量和保护Tria所有海洋野生动物的最好办法就是废止我们的规定而采用Omni的规定。
中文提纲：
1.        概括题目，这出editorial的建议有错误
2.        不能肯定鱼群的数量减少是由于过度捕鱼，因为没有数据显示渔民的数量上升
3.        不能肯定数量减少不是由于污染
4.        两地区的情况不一样 没有可比性
5.        总结
正文：
In this newsletter, the editorial advocate the marine sanctuary on Tria Island to adopt the regulations applied in Omni Island instead of its former ones. To support the recommendation, the editorial argues that many fish population in Tria Island are decreasing with the regulations that ban dumping and offshore oil drilling within 20 miles of the island. While the decrease does not happen in Omni Island whose regulations also ban fishing with 10 miles of the island. A closer inspection will enable us to find several fallacies in this argument without difficulty.

Firstly, it is presumptuous to reach the inference that the declining of many fish populations is due to over fishing. Yet common sense informs me that over fishing is caused by the increase of the fishers’ population or the demand of fish. Nonetheless, the editorial fails to provide either the total number of fishers in the area of Tria Island or the statistics of the demand of fish recently. In other words, the conclusion draws by the arguer is ill-founded at all. It is entirely possible that some other factors are responsible to the decrease. For example, maybe the climate in the island has changed to be uncomfortable for the fish to exist or some other reasons.(这里想说的事鱼的淡季，就是老鱼快死了，小鱼还是鱼卵的状态，不知道怎么说)
   
Secondly, it is also arbitrary of the editorial to assert that the slump is not caused by pollution. According to the newsletter, the regulations of the marine sanctuary on Tria Island ban bumping and offshore oil drilling only within 20 miles of the island. What about the area beyond 20 miles? We can not exclude the possibility that the area outside 20miles of the island is polluted seriously. Especially when the pollution happens upriver, a sharp decrease of the fish population is inevitable.  

Last but not least, provided that it is the over fishing that causes the decline, the Tria Island can not abandon the former regulations and totally adopt those of Omni. The arguer ignores the differences between the two islands. Maybe the fish in Omni Island all live in 10 miles around the island while the circumstance in Tria Island is different. If the most fish live 10 miles far from the Tria Island, it will be no use to adopt Omni’s regulations. So the marine sanctuary on Tria Island should establish protection regulations only depend on their own circumstance.

In a sum, the editorial’s assertion about the reason of the fish population decline is unsubstantiated. To strengthen it, the arguer should provide more detailed statistics to ensure the decrease is the result of over fishing. In addition, the measurement recommended by the arguer is neither improper. The Tria Island should make their own regulations.
447字