argument131 五一互助小组

为了忘记UID: 2317994

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: 427          TIME: 00:38:17          DATE: 2007-7-7 11:25:04

To be sure, Tria Island has a long way to go to protect certain marine mammals. However, whether the argument above is illogical should be doubled. There is no evidence to show that the declining in Tria Island was caused by fishing, and the ban act in Omni Island will be effective to be in Tria Island.

In the first place, the argument is questioned by the conclusion that it is fishing that result in the declining of fish population. No data to show how many fishers were there in Tria Island. Maybe there were only a few people in the island living on fishing, and the number of fishes that they fished could not cause the declining of fish populations. Furthermore, only when the author proves that the number of fishing increased greatly, the conclusion can be drawn. However, the author can provide us with those evidences. In that case, it is unfair to put the reason of this declining into the fishing.

In the second place, the author seem to fail to take into account the fact that it is possible that pollution came from the area far from 20 miles. Although dumping and offshore oil drilling within 20 miles were forbidden, no body that deny the fact that the rubbish and oil pollution might came from other areas. And there is no measure to do with the pollution from other areas. In a word, we may draw the conclusion that it is possible that the declining of fish populations was caused by the pollution came from more far areas.

In the third place, whether the measures taken in Omni Island are suitable for Tria Island should be doubted. As the argument above said the ban in Omni Island regulated dumping, offshore oil drilling, and fishing within 10 miles. It is possible that the fish in Omni Island lived in 10 miles from the bank. So the ban was effective in Omni Island. However, the ban could not be effective in Tria Island if the fish lived far from 10 miles, because fishers can boat to areas which are more than 10 miles far from the island to fish. In that case, the number of fishing will not be limited potently, and it will be useless to restore the fish population. So without the survey about where the fish live in Tria's waters, it is cursory of Tria Island to adopt the ban of Omni.

In final analysis, the author can not convince us 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. In order to make the argument more convince, the author should provide us with more data about fishing action in Tria Island, and more survey should be done to prove that the Omni's ban of marine sanctuary will take the same effects in Tria Island.