|
Argument131 Spring-第1次作业 TOPIC: ARGUMENT131 - 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."
WORDS: 507 TIME: 00:28:32 DATE: 2007-10-24 1:27:59
In this newsletter,the author concludes that Tria Island should abandon their regulations and adopt those of Omni.To support this argument,the author cites a native report of Omni showing that banning dumping,offshore oil drilling,and fishing within 10miles of Omni do no significant declin in its fish populations,and points out that the decline in fish populations in Tria's water is the result of overfishing,not pollution.Then the author reasons 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.The author suffers from several problems,which render in（it细心点） unconvincing as it stands.
Fist of all, the author rents on the assumption that the decline in fish populations in Tria's water is resulted in（改为from） the overfishing,but since he provide no evidence to subustantiate this assumpiton it is equally possible that change of climate and ambaries causes the migration of some species of fish and leads the decline in fish populations.He also unfairly assumes that there is no pollution happened in Tria Island without any convictive evidence.（这个短语与前面的unfairly是否重复，建议把unfairly删除）Withour （without）rulling out this possible scenarioes,the author cannot convince me that the decline in fish populations only causes of overfishing,not due to any other ways.
In the second place,by relying on the native report of Omni to support its conclusion the argument depends on the assumption that the instance of Omni equals to that in Tria Island.Yet the author provides no evidence to support this assumption,It is possible that the situation in Tria Island opposes to that in Omni.Even if the report of Omni are statistically representative of Tria Island,one cannot infer that the regulations of Omni must be adopted in Tria Island as well,the author seems to assume withour(without习惯性错误吗，出现两次了哦) supporting evidence that this is the case.In short,lacking （加上 of）assurances that the report could reflect the consequence extension, the author cannot draw any reliable conclusions based on the report that the decline in its fish population only cause by overfishing.Morever,the cited instance involves only "10 miles",not "20miles".In sum,the author commits a fallacy of false analogy in assuming that Tria can achieve the same goal by following the example of Omni.
Finally,even if Tria can restore Tria's fish populations by following the example of Omni,then the author unfairly assumes that the Tria could protect all of Tria's marine wildlife by adopting the regulations of Omni.But there is no guarantee that such a measure could protect all of Tria's marine wildlife in the argument.Without showing any evidence to substantiate this assumption,the author can not justifiably recommend from that adoping the regulations of Omni could help to protect all of Tria's marine wildlife.（这段话建议举个情景假设，可能会显得更加充实，我想帮忙举例，但我也实在想不出来） In conclusion,（如果用sum效果一样，建议用sum,节省时间，避免打错字）the argument is indefensible as it stands.To strengthen it the author must assure me that the Omni report accurately reflect the objective fact there,and he must also provide clear evidence for the perception about the feasibility of generalizing the measure of Omni in protecting the fish to all of Tria's wildlife.To better assess the regulations of Omni,I would need more statistical information about the effect of the measure taken in Omin. The syllabus of ARGU131:
1) The author fails to provide any evidence to substantiate the assumption that the decline in fish populations in Tria’s water dues to overfishing.
2) The author unfairly assumes that there is no pollution happened in Tria Island.
3) The author unfairly supposes that the situation in Omin and Tria Island are the same,and commits an idolum of false analogy in assuming that Tria can achieve the same goal by following the example of Omni.
4) The author unfairly assumes that the measures taken to protect the fish can protect all of Tria’s marine wildlife.
点评：通读你的issue和argument，我学到很多东西，我真的很想提点创意的东西，但通读了这么多次，除了错别字，我很少发现问题，实在很不好意思，我真的看了好久。
不过总体感觉你的语言功底够了，现在缺乏的是知识面，还有一些例子。希望你继续努力，多浏览一些英文期刊，多积累素材。你应该可以冲满分的。加油。
[ 本帖最后由 林周孟 于 2007-11-1 22:24 编辑 ] | 
发表于 2007-10-25 12:41:13
签到领寄托币
GO
转发
