argument131 fly aw小组作业第三十六次作业

honeyviolaUID: 2199703

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."

In this newsletter, the declining of fish populations in Tria waters dues to overfishing within 20 miles of Tria. To justify this conclusion the argument points out that regulations in Tria marine sanctuary don’t ban fishing. Also, the argument points out that marine sanctuary on Omni island is protected by regulations in which ban dumping, offshore oil drilling, and fishing within 10 miles of Omni are prohibited. I find the argument unpersuasive, for several reasons.

First, this argument fails to establish the causal relationship between not banning fishing and decrease in fish populations. Perhaps, some kinds of fish return to their primary habitats. Or some of them are threatened by unknown ferocious species. Or perhaps, some of fish leave spawns away.

Secondly, No evidence shows no pollution in Tria. Since ban dumping and offshore oil drilling with 20 miles are not equal to the water are less polluted. Maybe, 20 miles away, some pollution is not banned. Thus, the polluted water merge into the clean area in Tira which cause the 20 miles of Tria are no longer clean again virtually.

Finally, this argument relies on false analogy between Tria island and Omni island. We are not sure whether the geography structure under the water which may affect the population of fish is same in both water areas. Maybe the area of Omini water is suitable to be regulated in 10 miles while in Tria water area 20 miles are proper for the aim of protecting marine mammals. Or Omini island has not reported the significant decline in its fish populations doesn’t mean there is no decrease phenomenon in Omini island. Maybe the local government covers the truth to build good impression fro out world. Maybe the decline will appear several years later.

In conclusion, the argument is unpersuasive as it stands. To convince me there will be clear evidence to be cited to show that there is causal relationship between not banning fishing and decrease in fish populations and no pollution in Tria. Finally, to better evaluate the argument, more information about Tira water area and Omini water area have similar geography structure as well as no decline of fish in Omini water area can be provided.