argument131 【jet小组】第十次作业

LITTERBOULDERUID: 2367811

In this argument, the author recommends that in order to increase the population in Tria Island(TI), local authority should replace present regulation with Omni Island(OI)'s .To support his recommendation the arguer concludes the decline in population of fish in TI is due to overfishing based on a comparison between regulations adopted by two islands, and expresses optimism toward the future of new regulation with an analogy of OI. Close scrutiny of the evidence given above ,some logical flaws prevent it to be forceful and convincing.

A threshold problem with the arguer has to do with the causal relationship between decline in population of fish and overfishing. It is entirely possible that the decline in population of fish is a normal change, considering the living habit of particular fish which have to migrate from here to there for climatical needs. It is also quite possible that the survey on the population is conducted in a area with less fish accidentally. As there is no evidence to show the exact reason of decline and necessary information on implicit survey behind the arguer's assertion,

Secondly, even if the decline of population is due to overfishing in TI, we can not draw a compelling conclusion that the same regulation of OI would similarly have effect on TI without any evidence to confirm some existed difference between two islands. Even there is no obvious difference, the __ of this regulation can also determine the result .Maybe the authority in TI is lack the ability to carry out this regulation for some financial problems or lack of experience of doing so. For that matter, even the regulation of OI is actually sound and effective, I still see a clear future that there would be an increase of population of fish in TI.

Finally, even we assume that the authority performs well in carrying out this regulation, the arguer's assertion that all of Tria's marine wildlife will be beneficiary is doubtful. As mentioned in paragraph, this regulation aims at protecting fish only; however marine wildlife amounts far more than only fish. So the condition of other marine species' population after adopting the regulation should be questioned. Maybe other species' population otherwise inclines. If so, this regulation need to be paused and modified until it can ultimately bring benefit to all of Tria's marine wildlife as the arguer claims.

To sum up, the arguer's assertion relies on a series of unsubstantiated assumptions which greatly weaken the strength of logic in reasoning. To bolster the recommendation, the arguer should provide more detailed and compelling evidence on the reason of population decline in fish , the method of surveying and existed difference between two islands. It would be helpful if some other information on the range of beneficiaries of this regulation .

(2008-2-21 10:36:15)