Argument131[0806G-AWER小组]第一次作业 by chaoren1122

chaoren1122UID: 2281781

131.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."

Tria岛的海洋生物禁猎区是用来保护某些海洋哺乳动物的。它禁止在Tria20英里以内倾倒废物和近海采油，但捕鱼并不禁止。当前Tria水域的很多种鱼类数量都在下降，这种现象被认为是污染造成的。相比之下，Omni岛的海洋生物禁猎区禁止倾倒废物、近海采油和在Omni10英里以内捕鱼，Omni没有上报任何鱼类数量的显著下降。显然，Tria水域鱼类数量的下降是过度捕鱼而不是污染造成的。因此，回复Tria鱼类数量和保护Tria所有海洋野生动物的最好办法就是废止我们的规定而采用Omni的规定。

提纲：
1.作者说当前“currently”鱼类下降 ，这可能是一个短期问题。比如这个时候是鱼类繁殖的淡季。另外作者说Tria鱼类下降是由于过度捕猎而不是污染，但作者没有足够的证据说明。
2.作者拿Tria和Omni做对比，然而没有考虑到其他影响鱼类下降的因素是否相同。
3 Omni的规定不一定适用于Tria
正文：
This editorial argues that a recent reduction of fish populations in Tria’s is due to overfishing, not pollution, and that Tria’s marine sanctuary should therefore adopt the regulations of Omni. To support this argument the editorial’s author points out that with the previous regulations that does not ban fishing, many fish populations in Tria's waters are declining currently. In contract, the author also points out that Omni Island , which has different regulations that bans fishing within 10 miles , reports no significant decline in its fish populations. The editorial suffers from several problems, which render it unconvincing as it stands.
   First of all, Tria only “currently” reduced its fish population. Perhaps not enough time has passed to determine the trend of fish extinction——especially if the reduction remains untested during a season of the year in which low breeding rate of fish prevail. Additionally, the editorial refers only to Tria’s regulations ban dumping and offshore oil drilling within 20 miles. Perhaps the contaminated water near Tria beyond 20 miles polluted the water of Tria. Thus, lacking reliable reason of fish population reduction, it is difficult to accept the conclusion that the decline in fish populations in Tria's waters is the result of overfishing, not pollution.
   Secondly, the argument assumes that all other factors affecting fish population reduction have remained the same between Tria and Omni. Yet the author fails to provide evidence to support this assumption. In fact, maybe other factors, such as the climate and location of the Island, or even the base population of fish, are different. Without considering and ruling out these and other factors that might have served to reduce the fish population, the author cannot justifiably conclude that the regulations of Tria are inferior to Omni.
   Thirdly, the author unfairly implies that the no significant decline of fish population in Omni was due to its regulation. It is entirely possible that the regulations didn’t actually the only thing protect the fish population, but other factors, such as stricter law enforcement measures or improved breeding techniques, have served to remain the fish population. Without considering and ruling out these and other factors that might have served to protect fish population in Omni, the author cannot confidently recommend that Tria emulate Omni’s regulation. It is possible that an increasing reduction of fish population is going unreported in that country.
   In conclusion, the editorial fails to convince me that Tria should emulate Omni’s regulation. To strengthen the argument the author must account for all other factors that might influence the fish population in both Islands. To better asses the impact of the overfishing on fish population, I would need more statistical information about the reduction rate of fish ,collected over a longer time period. I would also need to know what percentage of fish population decline in Omni goes unreported.

穿着拖鞋追你UID: 2375959

Tria岛的海洋生物禁猎区是用来保护某些海洋哺乳动物的。它禁止在Tria20英里以内倾倒废物和近海采油，但捕鱼并不禁止。当前Tria水域的很多种鱼类数量都在下降，这种现象被认为是污染造成的。相比之下，Omni岛的海洋生物禁猎区禁止倾倒废物、近海采油和在Omni10英里以内捕鱼，Omni没有上报任何鱼类数量的显著下降。显然，Tria水域鱼类数量的下降是过度捕鱼而不是污染造成的。因此，回复Tria鱼类数量和保护Tria所有海洋野生动物的最好办法就是废止我们的规定而采用Omni的规定。提纲：
1.作者说当前“currently”鱼类下降，这可能是一个短期问题。比如这个时候是鱼类繁殖的淡季。另外作者说Tria鱼类下降是由于过度捕猎而不是污染，但作者没有足够的证据说明。
2.作者拿Tria和Omni做对比，然而没有考虑到其他影响鱼类下降的因素是否相同。
3 Omni的规定不一定适用于Tria
正文：
This editorial argues that a recent reduction of fish populations in Tria’s is due to overfishing, not pollution, and that Tria’s marine sanctuary should therefore adopt the regulations of Omni. To support this argument the editorial’s author points out that with the previous regulations that does not ban fishing, many fish’population in Tria's waters are[is] declining currently. In contract [contrast], the author also points out that Omni island, which has different regulations that bans fishing within 10 miles , reports no significant decline in its fish population. The editorial suffers from several problems, which render it unconvincing as it stands.
   First of all, Tria only “currently” reduced its fish population[表达不对，Tria…reduced…population? The fish population in Tria reduced]. Perhaps not enough time has passed to determine the trend of fish extinction——especially if [when] the reduction remains untested during a season of the year in which low breeding rate of fish prevails. Additionally, the editorial refers only to Tria’s regulations banning dumping and offshore oil drilling within 20 miles. Perhaps the contaminated water near Tria beyond 20 miles polluted the water of Tria. Thus, lacking reliable reason of fish population’s reduction, it is difficult to accept the conclusion that the decline in fish population in Tria's waters is the result of overfishing, not pollution.
   Secondly, the argument assumes that all other factors affecting fish population reduction have remained the same between Tria and Omni. Yet the author fails to provide evidence to support this assumption. In fact, maybe other factors, such as the climate and location of the Island, or even the base population of fish, are different. Without considering and ruling out these and other factors that might have served to reduce the fish population, the author cannot justifiably conclude that the regulations of Tria are inferior to Omni.
   Thirdly, the author unfairly implies that the no significant decline of [in] fish population in Omni was due to its regulation. It is entirely possible that the regulations is not actually the only thing protecting the fish population, but other factors, such as strict law enforcement measures or improved breeding techniques, have served to remain the fish population. Without considering and ruling out these and other factors that might have served to protect fish population in Omni, the author cannot confidently recommend that Tria emulate Omni’s regulation. It is possible that anincreasing reduction of fish population is going unreported [?,不是很理解这句话的意思] in that country.
   In conclusion, the editorial fails to convince me [us] that Tria should emulate Omni’s regulation. To strengthen the argument the author must account for all other factors that might influence the fish population in both Islands. To better asses the impact of the overfishing on fish population, I [We] would need more statistical information about the reduction rate of fish, collected over a longer time period. I would also need to know what percentage of fish population decline in Omni goes unreported.

你好高手啊，第一次可以写的这么好，汗啊、、、、、
文章仔细看了一下，只有一些小错误（见批注），其他的都相当的好了，词汇量丰富，用语较准确，句式丰富，理由也很充分（我能想到的你都写到了，你写的我有的还没想到了！高手啊。。。。。。）。看的出来你基本功相当的扎实啊！只是有个别动词如果再用准确一下，就更完美了！
向你多学习啊！有机会多交流啊！:handshake
（我最近在忙着考试，可能过几天才会完成我的作业，到时多多指教啊！:) ）

[ 本帖最后由 穿着拖鞋追你 于 2007-12-24 18:05 编辑 ]