Argument131 【jet小组】第十次作业

jinluevaUID: 2390375

Time: 35m
Date: 2008-2-21

Before Tria Island abandoning its current regulations and adopting those of Omni, the whole reasoning of the articles in newsletter needs to be reevaluated from different angles. According to the author, these changes of regulations should be made because the decline of fish population in Tira's waters is caused by over-fishing rather than pollution. To prove this point, the successful implement of regulations in Omni has been presented as evidence.

Unfortunately, the author's analysis about the marine mammals' protection in Omin is obviously problematic, which undermines its support to his following argument. However, it is equally possible that the activities of environmentalists saved these fish, or other environmental projects, say, artificial reproduce of certain rare species and freeing of them slower the decline trend. Without ruling out other possible alternatives, the author easily takes it for granted that it is the Omin's regulations, which ban dumping, offshore oil drilling and fishing within 10 miles of Omni that successfully guarantee the constant population of fish. For this assumed cause-effect relationship to be convictive, the author must exclude all these possibilities.

Besides, we may also ask: is the comparison of the situations of marine mammals the same, or at least comparable, between Tria Island and Omni? First we should exam natural environments in the two areas. If, for instance, the island of Tria lies in tropic sea, while Omni is an island in the arctic ocean, the potential dangers for marine animals in these two islands may not be the same. Moreover, it is also possible that the economy in Tria in basically depends on heavy industries, which result in severe pollution of water around it, yet people in Omni live on fishing, and overfishing had been popular before the implementation of its regulations.

Furthermore, even if we accept the assumptions that the regulations in Omni works well and the problems face these two island are exactly the same, it is still far from reliable to draw the conclusion that the fish population in Tria Island will surly be restored after the adoption of bans on fishing. If, say, the present population of fish there has already reached an extremely low level, and many of rare species have already diminished, more actions such as scientific researches and financial investment than the regulations will be required.

Finally, what if we look over some terminology used by the author? What does the phrase 'no significant decline' mean? Does it mean that the fish population in Omni remains constant or decreased but not so phenomenal? Is the situation concerning fish population in Omni really more satisfying that that of Tria Island? And in his conclusion, what does the author indicates by using "all the marine wildlife"? Dose he suggest simply enacting bans on fish can also benefits other marine creatures even if marine plants which provides food for fish? Or he simply considers these regulations will promote the whole biological environment in Tira Island? The vagueness of these terminology further reduces the practical value of the argument.

In sum, although the argument may be informative, the author needs to reconsider many of the issues in order to offer a suasive and workable suggestion.

[ 本帖最后由 jinlueva 于 2008-2-22 17:12 编辑 ]

glwy123UID: 2421214

牛啊

滴滴雨儿UID: 2392741

Before Tria Island abandoning its current regulations and adopting those of Omni, the whole reasoning of the articles in newsletter needs to be reevaluated from different angles. According to the author, these changes of regulations should be made because the decline of fish population in Tira(Tria)'swaters is caused by over-fishing rather than pollution. To prove this point,the successful implement of regulations in Omni has been presented as evidence.开头很好,别具一格.

Unfortunately, the author's analysis about the marine mammals' protection in Omin(Omni) is obviously problematic, which underminesits support to his following argument. However(后面这句跟TS有转折关系吗?), it is equally possible that the activities of environmentalists saved these fish, or(后者难道不是前者的具体表现吗?是or的关系吗?) other environmentalprojects, say, artificial reproduce of certain rare species and freeing of them to slower the decline trend. Without ruling outother possible alternatives, the author easily takes it for granted that it isthe Omin(Omni)'s regulations, which ban dumping,offshore oil drilling and fishing within 10 miles of Omni that successfully guarantee the constant population of fish. For this assumed cause-effect relationship to be convictive, the author must exclude all these possibilities.(就差一句话,点明不能单单凭此就要用O的regulations)
这一段说还有其他可能性使Omni的鱼群数量不降低.

Besides, we may also ask: is the comparison of the situations of marine mammalsthe same, or at least comparable, between Tria Islandand Omni? First we should exam natural environments in the two areas. If, forinstance, the island of Tria lies in tropic sea, while Omni is an island inthe Arctic Ocean, the potential dangers for marineanimals in these two islands may not be the same. (对比很强烈,很好)Moreover, it is also possible that the economy in Tria (删in) basically depends onheavy industries, which result in severe pollution of water around it, yetpeople in Omni live on fishing, and overfishing had been popular before theimplementation of its regulations. (也差一句话,”所以O岛的制度不适合T岛云云.”)
这一段指出不能简单的类比两岛情况.(反例举的很形象)

Furthermore, even if we accept the assumptions that the regulations in Omniworks well and the problems face these two island are exactly the same, it isstill far from reliable to draw the conclusion that the fish population in TriaIsland will surly be restored after the adoption of bans on fishing. If, say,the present population of fish there has already reached an extremely lowlevel, and many of rare species have already diminished, more actions such asscientific researches and financial investment than the regulations will berequired. (这个if也举的很好)
这一段说其实采取了O的措施也不一定能恢复.

Finally, what if we look over some terminology used by the author? (可以这样子说吗,我真的不确定..) What does the phrase ‘nosignificant decline’ mean? Does it mean that the fish population in Omniremains constant or decreased but not so phenomenal? Is the situationconcerning fish population in Omni really more satisfying that(than) that of Tria Island?And in his conclusion, what does the author indicates by using "all themarine wildlife"? Dose he suggest simply enacting bans on fish can alsobenefits other marine creatures even if marine plants which provides food forfish? Or he simply considers these regulations will promote the whole biologicalenvironment in Tira(Tria) Island?The vagueness of these terminology(ies) furtherreduces the practical value of the argument.
这一段说作者用的一些模糊术语削弱了其可信度.

In sum, although the argument may be informative, the author needs toreconsider many of the issues in order to offer a persuasiveand workable suggestion.

文中有多处把岛名字打错啦,要小心哦~^_^
总体感觉楼主的观点独到而又有针对性, 反例都举得非常有说服力,语句使用也很恰当,让我好好学习了一把^_^.稍微欠缺一点的就是在举完反例后我觉得应当点明这个反例的作用,而不是留着让阅卷人自己去推理.

[ 本帖最后由 滴滴雨儿 于 2008-2-24 17:44 编辑 ]