argument131 [米国有米] 2.13 请下筷子~

绚烂夏花UID: 2245298

Argument 131
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."



---正文---
The seeming sound argument draws the conclusion that to abandon regulations in Tria Island and adopt those in Omni is the best way to restore Tria's fish and protect all of Tria's marine wildlife. However, based on dubious evidence and illogical reasoning, the argument is far from perfect,

To begin with, the author of the newsletter fails to establish a causal relationship between the decline in fish population and overfishing in Tria Island. Other alternative explanations are overlooked by the author. For one thing, other sources of pollution should be considered, such as  pollution caused by rivers flowing into the marine sanctuary, and dumping or oil drilling beyond 20 miles of Tria which maybe so serious that the pollution in water or sound affect the living of fishes in the sanctuary. For anther, the climate and season will greatly influence the population of fishes. Common sense tells us that fishes tend to decline in winters or suddenly cold water caused by ocean currents since the living conditions becomes unsuitable and food is in short. Moreover, fish may immigrate in certain seasons, which, of course, would result in the decline in the population of the fish. Without considering all these alternatives, the deduction of the author is open to doubt.

Further, even if the decline in the fish population is a result of overfishing, it is highly dubious that regulations implemented in Omni will be applicable in Tria. On one hand, whether the regulations applied in Omni are effective is in suspect. That no significant decline in fish in omni was reported doesn't indicate fish population didn’t decline. Maybe there was significant decline but was not reported. Or the decline, through not significant, is more serious than the decline in Tria. If these were true, the author' recommendation should be reconsidered. On the other hand, difference between the two islands may outweigh their similarities. For example, the kinds of fish , the climates and temperatures, the quality of water and the like may vary in the two waters, thus calling for different regulations suitable for the specific conditions.

In addition, the regulations which may be effective in protecting fish are not necessarily applicable for all the other marine wildlife. Various marine wildlife have different living style. Consequently, measures effective for protecting fish cannot cover all the needs for protecting all the marine lives.

After careful consideration, the author lacks both sufficient evidence and precise reasoning to make a sound argument. The argument can be improved if the author could make a thorough investment into at least the above three issues, thus providing solid evidence to prove that overfishing is the cause for the decline in fish population in Tria and the best way is to adopt regulations of Omni.

ntmlgszUID: 2235666

---正文---
The seeming sound argument draws the conclusion that to abandon regulations inTria Island and adopt those in Omni is the best way to restore Tria's fish andprotect all of Tria's marine wildlife. However, based on dubious evidence andillogical reasoning, the argument is far from perfect.

To begin with, the author of the newsletter fails to establish a causalrelationship between the decline in fish population and overfishing in Tria Island.Other alternative explanations are overlooked by the author. For one thing,other sources of pollution should be considered, such as  pollution caused by rivers flowing into the marine sanctuary [这个和主题中的不准排放相矛盾], and dumping or oildrilling beyond 20 miles of Tria which maybe so serious that the pollution inwater or sound affect the living of fishes in the sanctuary. For another, theclimate and season will greatly influence the population of fishes. Commonsense tells us that fishes tend to decline in winters or suddenly cold watercaused by ocean currents since the living conditions becomesunsuitable and food is in short. Moreover, fish mayimmigrate in certain seasons, which, of course, would result in the decline inthe population of the fish.[鱼类迁徙的可能说的很好，我就没有想到] Without considering all thesealternatives, the deduction of the author is open to doubt.

Further, even if the decline in the fish population is a result of overfishing,it is highly dubious that regulations implemented in Omni will be applicable inTria. On one hand, whether the regulations applied inOmni are effective is in suspect. [怎么都觉得这句话和前面一句表达的完全一样][还有你这里最好在详细深入下，否则给人的感觉后面显得特别突兀]That no significantdecline in fish in omni was reported doesn't indicate fish population didn’tdecline. Maybe there was significant decline but was not reported. Or thedecline, through not significant, is more serious than the decline in Tria.[作者说了Omni reports no significant decline in its fishpopulations，所以这里根本没必要攻击，你这是过分怀疑] If these were true, theauthor' recommendation should be reconsidered. On the other hand, difference [复数] between the two islands may outweigh their similarities. For example,the kinds of fish , the climates and temperatures, the quality of water and thelike may vary in the two waters,[句子断开] thus calling for different regulations suitable for the specificconditions.[你这里攻击了3个地方，但是由于缺乏总结，使得攻击显得没有目的和零散]

In addition, the regulations which may be effective in protecting fish are notnecessarily applicable for all the [去掉]other marine wildlife.Various marine wildlife have different living style. [复数] Consequently, measureseffective for protecting fish cannot cover all the needs for protecting all themarine lives.[本段最好和上一段合并]

After a careful consideration, the author lacks both sufficient evidence andprecise reasoning to make a sound argument. The argument can be improved if theauthor could [怎么和前面的can时态不一致？]make a thorough investment[投资?投入? 授权? 封锁?]into at least the abovethree issues, thus providing solid evidence [复数] to prove that overfishing is the cause for the decline in fishpopulation in Tria and the best way is to adopt regulations of Omni.
总的来说写的还不错呵，攻击点都比较准确，深入的也不错

绚烂夏花UID: 2245298

thanks a lot~!