Argument131 勇往直前小组14th作者nbta03

nbta03UID：2326371

131 - The following appeared in an environmental newsletter published in TriaIsland.

"The marine sanctuary on TriaIsland 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 OmniIsland 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."
WORDS: 440          TIME: 00:30:00          DATE: 2007-8-1 11:49:24

In the argument, the arguer recommends that the best way to restore Tria's fish populations and to protect all of Tria's marine wildlife is to abandon its regulations and and adopt those of Omni. At first glance, the argument seems to be appealing, while a careful examination would reveal how groundless it is.

Firstly, the arguer falsely assumes that the little decline in fish populations in Omni is attributed to its regulations that ban dumping, offshore oil drilling and fishing within 10 miles of Omni. The arguer provides no evidence to establish a causal relationship between the regulations and the result. And the arguer does not provide any information whether the reports represents the whole situation in Omni. If more factors of sharply fishing decrease have not been reported, say, the fish population maybe declines actually, then it is unwise to draw any conclusion from these reports. The arguer should provide some more detailed information to convince us.

Secondly, the arguer makes a false analogy. Even if the regulations in Omni make effect in keeping fish population stable, which is , of course , an unwarranted assumption, it does not follow that adopting the same regulation will perform well in Tria. The arguer provide no evidence to show that the two places are similar enough to make that conclusion. The factor maybe totally different in these two. It is likely the ocean current or climatic condition in Tria different from Omni that are not suitable for fish living and make the fish population in Tria declines significantly. It is also possible that some other kinds of pollution can lead to the same result.

Last but not least, the arguer makes a hasty generalization that adopting the regulation can protect all of Tria's marine wildlife. Even if the regulation of Omni can do well in stabilize the fish population in Tria, it does not means that all marine wildlife can be protected. The regulations of  Omni do not ban hunting other wildlife but fish so that other wildlife may be still in danger. Furthermore, many other factors will influence the wildlife population, such as climatic condition, water condition, food supply etc. Unless the arguer takes all other possibilities into account, we cannot place our trust on the conclusion.

In sum, the argument lacks credibility because the evidences do not lend strong support to what the arguer claims. To strengthen the argument , the arguer would have to provide more evidence concerning the effect of adopting the regulation of Omni in Tria. Additionally, the arguer must rule out all other possibilities that would affect the marine wildlife to make the conclusion logically acceptable.

nornsUID：2325187

等我把argu赶上来了就改你的阿～～

nornsUID：2325187

131 - The following appeared in an environmental newsletter published in TriaIsland.

"The marine sanctuary on TriaIsland 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 OmniIsland 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."
WORDS: 440          TIME: 00:30:00          DATE: 2007-8-1 11:49:24

In the argument, the arguer recommends that the best way to restore Tria's fish populations and to protect all of Tria's marine wildlife is to abandon its regulations and and adopt those of Omni. At first glance, the argument seems to be appealing, while a careful examination would reveal how groundless it is.

Firstly, the arguer falsely assumes that the little decline in fish populations in Omni is attributed to its regulations that ban dumping, offshore oil drilling and fishing within 10 miles of Omni. The arguer provides no evidence to establish a causal relationship between the regulations and the result. And the arguer does not provide any information whether the reports represents the whole situation in Omni.(从这里开始才是它因，而且它因还只是几个字描述，前面的话都很空) If more factors of sharply fishing decrease have not been reported, say, the fish population maybe declines actually, then it is unwise to draw any conclusion from these reports. The arguer should provide some more detailed information to convince us.

Secondly, the arguer makes a false analogy. Even if the regulations in Omni make effect in keeping fish population stable, which is , of course , an unwarranted assumption, it does not follow that adopting the same regulation will perform well in Tria. The arguer provide no evidence to show that the two places are similar enough to make that conclusion. The factor maybe totally different in these two. It is likely the ocean current or climatic condition in Tria different from Omni that are not suitable for fish living and make the fish population in Tria declines significantly. It is also possible that some other kinds of pollution can lead to the same result.同样的，例子没展开

Last but not least, the arguer makes a hasty generalization that adopting the regulation can protect all of Tria's marine wildlife. Even if the regulation of Omni can do well in stabilize the fish population in Tria, it does not means that all marine wildlife can be protected. The regulations of  Omni do not ban hunting other wildlife but fish so that other wildlife may be still in danger. Furthermore, many other factors will influence the wildlife population, such as climatic condition, water condition, food supply etc. Unless the arguer takes all other possibilities into account, we cannot place our trust on the conclusion.

In sum, the argument lacks credibility because the evidences do not lend strong support to what the arguer claims. To strengthen the argument , the arguer would have to provide more evidence concerning the effect of adopting the regulation of Omni in Tria. Additionally, the arguer must rule out all other possibilities that would affect the marine wildlife to make the conclusion logically acceptable.

反例和它因需要扩充， 空洞的指责性话语可以适当精简一点