Argument131 (gogogo!)

yunziluoUID: 2164829

Argument131

全文写作：
[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."

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。

写作提纲：
1，        总结题目
2，        Omin的鱼没有显著减少，不代表没减少，也许比Tria下降的还厉害，所以它的措施有效性值得怀疑；另外作者无情的排除了Tria的鱼少了跟污染无关，是没有道理的。
3，        照搬Omin的禁止捕鱼的政策不一定能保护其他野生海鲜；另外生搬硬套，不考虑自身措施的优点，可能带来可怕的后果。
4，        总结全文。

In this argument, the author recommends that Tria Island marine sanctuary should adopt the same way as Omni marine sanctuary did to restore fish population and protect all the marine wildlife of Tria. To support this conclusion, the author provides a comparison about regulations between Tria and Omin. At first glance the conclusion sounds reasonable. A careful examination, however, would reveal how groundless it actually is.

To begin with, based the facts that the regulations of banning fishing in Omin and no significant decline in its fish population the author assumes that Tria 's fish populations are declining because Tria does not ban fishing. However, it is not necessarily so. Firstly, no significant decline of Omin fish population does not mean no decline. Perhaps Omin's fish population decreased much more than Tria did. Without statistics of the fish decreasing population about Tria and Omin, it is difficult to determine whether the banning fishing is efficient to prevent the fish population from declining. Secondly, the author unfairly excludes the factor that pollution is responsible for the decline of fish population in Tria. On one hand, perhaps the small pollution of Omin rather than banning fishing regulation is an explanation for no significant fish population decline. On the other hand, perhaps the pollution of Tria is more severe than Omin and induces the fish population decline in Tria. Since no pollution statistics of Tria and no deep analysis about the reasons of fish population decline in Tria, the author’s conclusion is unconvinced.

Next, the author recommends the replacement of Tria's own regulations by Omin regulations to restore fish population and protect marine wild animal. However, there is no sufficient evidence to support this conclusion. Even assuming the banning fishing regulations can prevent decline of fish population, it is assertive to conclude that the regulations can protect marine wild animal. Perhaps some fish is natural enemy to other marine wild animal, if so, excessive fish population might threaten survival of some kinds of marine wild animals. Aside from this point, indiscriminate imitation of the regulations in Omin might induce bad effects. As the author provides in this argument, the range of banning dumping and offshore oil drilling in Tria is twice as much as Omin’s. If the regulation is important to protect fish population, and if Tria indeed adopts the regulations of Omin, the fish population of Tria might confront more severe threat and even to decrease dramatically. Since the author ignores the merits of Tria regulations and denies these regulations in general, the conclusion is unwarranted.

In sum, the author commits a fallacy of false analogy. To strengthen the conclusion, the author must find the true reason of the fish population decline in Tria by deep survey and objective data. Meanwhile, the author need balance the advantages and disadvantages of the regulations between Tria and Omin.
  
Word:475

加一UID: 2168628

In this argument, the author recommends that Tria Island marine sanctuary should adopt the same way as Omni marine sanctuary did to restore fish population and protect all the marine wildlife of Tria. To support this conclusion, the author provides a comparison about regulations between Tria and Omin. At first glance the conclusion sounds reasonable. A careful examination, however, would reveal how groundless it actually is.

To begin with, based the facts that the regulations of banning fishing in Omin and no significant decline in its fish population the author assumes that Tria 's fish populations are declining because Tria does not ban fishing. However, it is not necessarily so. Firstly, no significant decline of Omin fish population does not mean no decline. Perhaps Omin's fish population decreased much more than Tria did. Without statistics of the fish decreasing population about Tria and Omin, it is difficult to determine whether the banning fishing is efficient to prevent the fish population from declining. Secondly, the author unfairly excludes the factor that pollution is responsible for the decline of fish population in Tria. On one hand, perhaps the small pollution of Omin rather than banning fishing regulation is an explanation for no significant fish population decline. On the other hand, perhaps the pollution of Tria is more severe than Omin and induces the fish population decline in Tria. Since no pollution statistics of Tria and no deep analysis about the reasons of fish population decline in Tria, the author’s conclusion is unconvinced.:victory:
我觉得“Omin的鱼没有显著减少，不代表没减少，也许比Tria下降的还厉害”好像没太大必要哈。如果按照这个逻辑，“Currently many fish populations in Tria's waters are declining”没准就意味着十万条鱼中少了5条，属于正常的生物周期了。挑这个错误更多的是针对了证据本身，而不是证据之间的逻辑部分。所以这样的错误不挑也罢。:)个人观点，欢迎指正:handshake

Next, the author recommends the replacement of Tria's own regulations by Omin regulations to restore fish population and protect marine wild animal. However, there is no sufficient evidence to support this conclusion. Even assuming the banning fishing regulations can prevent decline of fish population, it is assertive to conclude that the regulations can protect marine wild animal. Perhaps some fish is natural enemy to other marine wild animal, （这种情况似乎还比较罕见）if so, excessive fish population might threaten survival of some kinds of marine wild animals. Aside from this point, indiscriminate imitation of the regulations in Omin might induce bad effects. As the author provides in this argument, the range of banning dumping and offshore oil drilling in Tria is twice as much as Omin’s. If the regulation is important to protect fish population, and if Tria indeed adopts the regulations of Omin, the fish population of Tria might confront more severe threat and even to decrease dramatically. Since the author ignores the merits of Tria regulations and denies these regulations in general, the conclusion is unwarranted.

In sum, the author commits a fallacy of false analogy. To strengthen the conclusion, the author must find the true reason of the fish population decline in Tria by deep survey and objective data. Meanwhile, the author need balance the advantages and disadvantages of the regulations between Tria and Omin.
  
建议一个错误写一段，那样结构会更清晰。本文的语言很流畅，特别是有些连词用的比较好，值得大家学习~

其实还有一个错误，就是Tria只要保护几种特定的海洋哺乳动物，而Argument结尾却说保护all of Tria's marine wildlife