argument131 交作业kito小组

kito9695UID: 209685

====================Argument===================
【题目】
Argument131（448words）
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."
【提纲】
1、错误前提鱼数下降不是因为污染
2、没有资料表明鱼数下降一定是因为过度捕捞
3、O地区和T地区的情况不一定完全相同，不能一味照搬
4、可能还有其他防止鱼数下降的原因，不一定要用O的经验

In this newsletter, the arguer asserts that 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. In order to support his argument, the arguer provides two evidence: one is the fact that currently many fish populations in Tria's waters are declining with its regulations not banning fishing; the other is Omni reports no significant decline in its fish populations with a different regulation. It seems logically at one glance, however, a fully scrutiny would reveals how warranted the argument is.

First and foremost, the major problem with this argument is that the arguer makes the conclusion based on a doubtable premise that pollution does not count for the declining of fish populations in Tria's waters, which thus lends little support to the argument. It is true that regulations there ban dumping and offshore oil drilling within 20 miles of Tria, however, no evidence reveals that people living near Tria’s waters well obey these regulations and also it is highly possible that oil could flow over outside 20 miles. In that case, pollution may appear to be the major factor of the fish declining.

Second, the assertion that the decline in fish populations in Tria's waters is surly the result of overfishing is open to doubt. There is no evidence indicating that the fishing amount is increasing while the fish population is decreasing. Perhaps, during this period, few people fishes, and if it is true, we could not consider overfishing as the main cause of fish declining. To draw the conclusion, the arguer should provide more data about fishing in Tria’s waters.

In addition, the arguer commits a fallacy of thoroughly equaling the situations in Omni and Tria. As a matter of fact, no evidence about the waters in two areas is provided. Fishing within 10 miles is forbidden in Omni while there is probable no fish at all within 10 miles in Tria, which result in invalid of this regulation. For lacking no details about waters and fish in two areas, the conclusion that adopting those regulation of Omni seems to be a little hasty.

Last but not least, the author ignores other possible factors that may also lead to a improving of fish population in Tria’s waters.

To sum up, the argument is not well reasoned as it stands according to the analysis above, since it does not only leave out several key issues, but also the evidence cited in the argument lends little sport to what the arguer claims. To make it logically accepted, the arguer would provide more details about the situations in both Tris and Omni waters.

谢谢~

@amy@UID: 209096

In this newsletter, the arguer asserts that the best way to restore Tria's fish populations and to protect all of Tria's marine wildlife is to abandon our [这里应该用Tria's吧，因为our对于the arguer是，对于我们就不是了] regulations and adopt those of Omni. In order to support his argument, the arguer provides two evidence: one is the fact that currently many fish populations in Tria's waters are declining with its regulations not banning fishing; the other is [这里的that可以省略吗？我不确定阿] Omni reports no significant decline in its fish populations with a different regulation. It seems logically at one glance [习惯用语是at first glance = at a glance，我不知道at one glance是不是地道:L], however, a fully scrutiny would reveals [reveal] how warranted the argument is.

First and foremost, the major problem with this argument is that the arguer makes the conclusion based on a doubtable premise that pollution does not count for the declining of fish populations in Tria's waters, which thus lends little support to the argument. It is true that regulations there ban dumping and offshore oil drilling within 20 miles of Tria, however, no evidence reveals that people living near Tria’s waters well obey these regulations and also it is highly possible that oil could flow [我觉得这块可能用float更好一点，因为oil一般都是漂浮，不至于流动吧] over outside 20 miles. In that case, pollution may appear to be the major factor of the fish declining [这里我觉得说成the major factor resulting in the fish declining或者the major reason of the fish declining更好一点，你再看看] .

Second, the assertion that the decline in [of?] fish populations in Tria's waters is surly [surely] the result of overfishing is open to doubt. There is no evidence indicating that the fishing amount is increasing while the fish population is decreasing. Perhaps, during this period, few people fishes [fish?], and if it is true, we could not consider overfishing as the main cause of fish declining. To draw the conclusion, the arguer should provide more data about fishing in Tria’s waters.

In addition, the arguer commits a fallacy of thoroughly equaling the situations in Omni and Tria. As a matter of fact, no evidence about the waters [水域的证据？应该是水域情况一样的证据吧？] in [the] two areas is provided. Fishing within 10 miles is forbidden in Omni while there is probable no fish at all within 10 miles in Tria, which result in invalid of this regulation. For lacking no [of吧] details about waters and fish in two areas, the conclusion that adopting those regulation of Omni seems to be a little hasty.

Last but not least, the author ignores other possible factors that may also lead to a improving of fish population in Tria’s waters.

To sum up, the argument is not well reasoned as it stands according to the analysis above, since it does not only [not only移到it前面] leave out several key issues, but also the evidence cited in the argument lends little sport [support] to what the arguer claims. To make it logically accepted, the arguer would [should吧？] provide more details about the situations in both Tris and Omni waters.