argument131 dganggang作业 （kito） 26分钟搞定 请同志们给出本组处女批

dganggangUID: 2125101

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：
他人经验不能随意类比
污染的可能性根本没讨论 过度捕鱼也没有证据
最后 好像santuary是保护哺乳动物的 鱼算吗？！

This newsletter has covered the main reasons of the arguer's suggestion to abandon T Island's regulation for the marine sanctuary including the fish populations are declining and the same situation in O Island has been much better due to their regulations, which has enlightened the arguer to blame overfishing for the loss of the fish in I. Thus, the arguer makes his final conclusion that the regulation of O should replace that of I.

The inference seems to be well-organized but several serious mistakes have made it totally groundless.

First of all, it's a common sense that the experience of O can not be absorbed and implemented thoroughly by T without any survey and introduction of details. We have no idea about what is the geographic, economic and environmental requirement of T, which means we can not judge whether it is suitable to learn O's regulations to abandon fishing. On the other hand, the result that no significant decline in O's fish populations has no necessarily causal relation with its regulation that prohibits fishing. We need more proofs to convince us that this regulation has lead to the better situation of O.

Secondly, the arguer roughly draws the statement that the decline in fish populations in T waters is the result of overfishing with no evidence at all. At the very beginning, the arguer mentions that " a situation blamed on pollution", after which the arguer does nothing to discuss the possibility of this cause, however, he blames overfishing for explaining the loss of fish population in T area directly based on the example of O. The miss of covering the reasonable saying of the "pollution" has made the arguer's point not objective at all.

Last but not the least, the arguer may misunderstand the function of the regulation of T Island. As the arguer mentions, “The marine sanctuary on Tria Island was established to protect certain marine mammals". Fish are not mammals as we all know. Therefore, the regulation of the marine sanctuary has no responsibility to concern the fishing problems for it should intend to focus on the protection of “certain marine mammals” at first. Thus, there is absolutely no causal relation between the decline of the fish population and the regulation of marine sanctuary, which has made the final solution the arguer advises to abandon the regulations extremely absurd.

In sum, this newsletter is based on inappropriate analogy, the lack of significant elements and the fallacy to neglect the accuracy of the information as well as the fundamental logic relation within all the information. The arguer may have to reconsider his suggestion.

[ 本帖最后由 11yaoyao 于 2006-1-12 22:38 编辑 ]

@amy@UID: 209096

:O 你把地名都简化了写的啊，可别这样写成习惯，到考试....  呵呵

智恩UID: 2160717

This newsletter has covered the main reasons of the arguer's suggestion to abandon T（不晓得可不可以直接这样缩写？） Island's regulation for the marine sanctuary including the fish populations are declining and the same situation in O Island has been much better due to their regulations, which has enlightened the arguer to blame overfishing for the loss of the fish in I. Thus, the arguer makes his final conclusion that the regulation of O should replace that of I.

The inference seems to be well-organized but several serious mistakes have made it totally groundless.（这句话就写在第一段吧？）

First of all, it's a common sense that the experience of O can not be absorbed and implemented thoroughly by T without any survey and introduction of details. We have no idea about what is the geographic, economic and environmental requirement of T, which means we can not judge whether it is suitable to learn O's regulations to abandon fishing. On the other hand, the result that no significant decline in O's fish populations has no necessarily causal relation（relationship） with its regulation that prohibits fishing. We need more proofs to convince us that this regulation has lead to the better situation of O.

Secondly, the arguer roughly draws the statement that the decline in fish populations in T waters is the result of overfishing with no evidence at all. At the very beginning, the arguer mentions that " a situation blamed on pollution", after which the arguer does nothing to discuss the possibility of this cause, however, he blames overfishing for explaining the loss of fish population in T area directly based on the example of O. The miss of covering the reasonable saying of the "pollution" has made the arguer's point not objective at all.

Last but not the least, the arguer may misunderstand the function of the regulation of T Island. As the arguer mentions, “The marine sanctuary on Tria Island was established to protect certain marine mammals". Fish are not mammals as we all know. Therefore, the regulation of the marine sanctuary has no responsibility to concern the fishing problems for it should intend to focus on the protection of “certain marine mammals” at first. Thus, there is absolutely no causal relation（relationship） between the decline of the fish population and the regulation of marine sanctuary, which has made the final solution the arguer advises to abandon the regulations extremely absurd.

In sum, this newsletter is based on inappropriate analogy, the lack of significant elements and the fallacy to neglect the accuracy of the information as well as the fundamental logic relation within all the information. The arguer may have to reconsider his suggestion.（一般在最后一段我会具体说说作者应该告诉我哪些才会让我信服，比如To strenghten it, the author must provide us information that······）


很佩服你的速度，就是还需要写得再具体一点，加油！！