argument131【0906G ANap Hand 作文互改小组】第二次作业 by doherty

stupidken2oUID: 2541049

提纲：
1.        拿两地做对比不具可比性，这不是化学实验，在自然环境中有太多不确定因素
2.        引起鱼类减少的并不一定就是污染，石油开采或者是过度捕捞，也可能是海洋洋流改变、气候因素、生物种群迁徙、食物链异常等
3.        保护Tria的生态环境不可能仅仅靠的只是政策，还要从每个人做起


"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."


The argument appeared in environmental newsletter published in Tria Island suggest that we should adopt the regulations executed in Omni to substitute those policies which have no effect on preventing the population of fish from decreasing. To my way of thinking, although the suggestion’s original idea is kind, but it’s still not reasonable and considerate due to some pretermissions in thinking and research.

To begin with, the author tries to illustrate his argument with a contrast between Tria and Omni. But it’s improper and imprecise. Dealing with environmental problem is not like making chemical experiment. The circumstance in nature is much more intricate and complex than in lab, and we must take all potential and conceivable factors into consideration.

Furthermore, the causations of the population decreasing in fish are not only dumping, offshore oil drilling, and fishing, they are multiple and diverse. Such as the unconventionality of the ocean current, the changing of the climate, the migration of the fish, and even the deterioration of the local food chain, are all the proper reasons to cause the phenomenon.

Finally, it’s far from enough to protect the marine wildlife just by the policies and regulations. In order to restore the fish population and protect all of the marine wildlife in Tria, education and drumbeating should be took into action. In this way, as far as I know, it will be efficient to gain our ends.

To sum up simply in one sentence, environmental protection is everyone's responsibility, and all the people around the world should take into action to protect our nature from pollution and deterioration.

goingeastUID: 2439824

The argument appeared in environmental newsletter published in Tria Island suggest that we should adopt the regulations executed in Omni to substitute those policies which have no effect on preventing the population of fish from decreasing.长句不错 To my way of thinking, although the suggestion’s original idea is kind, but it’s still not reasonable and considerate due to some pretermissions in thinking and research.[开头不错，简洁，没有模板的痕迹，再简单的具体说一下错误更好]

To begin with, the author tries to illustrate his argument with a contrast between Tria and Omni. But it’s improper and imprecise. Dealing with environmental problem is not like making chemical experiment. The circumstance in nature is much more intricate and complex than in lab, and we must take all potential and conceivable factors into consideration.[只是觉得，和我的一样，反驳还是缺乏深度，但又不知怎加深，疑惑。]

Furthermore, the causations of the population decreasing in fish are not only dumping, offshore oil drilling, and fishing, they are multiple and diverse. Such as the unconventionality of the ocean current, the changing of the climate, the migration of the fish, and even the deterioration of the local food chain, are all the proper reasons to cause the phenomenon.

Finally, it’s far from enough to protect the marine wildlife just by the policies and regulations. In order to restore the fish population and protect all of the marine wildlife in Tria, education and drumbeating should be took into action. In this way, as far as I know, it will be efficient to gain our ends.

To sum up simply in one sentence, environmental protection is everyone's responsibility, and all the people around the world should take into action to protect our nature from pollution and deterioration.

楼主的语言没有太大的问题，只是各个论点之间，感觉是独立的，简单并列关系，如果每个论点能在互相呼应，应该会更好，我也在思考，怎样才能让文章的论点能够巧妙的组合起来，欢迎与你交流！文章字数的问题，最好能在400左右。

irvine666UID: 2575525

原帖由 goingeast 于 2008-12-30 18:35 发表
.[只是觉得，和我的一样，反驳还是缺乏深度，但又不知怎加深，疑惑。]

一直认为，觉得没有东西写不仅仅是因为思维没有展开的原因，逻辑思考跳跃过大，也会使得文章空洞和不具体。刚好有空，分享一下我最近的心得，一起讨论。
就拿这篇argu的3个中间段落来说说好了，

第一段是讲两地之间没有可比性，那么，为什么没有可比性呢？原因可能有很多种，比如说TI和OI天气情况不一样，一个处于寒流带一个处于暖流带，或者一个处于热带一个处于寒带，或者一个岛每年都要被飓风洗劫另外一个平静的不行，或者（来个并列，前面讲气候后面讲人文）TI是个旅游岛，游客众多，OI不是，所以OI的鱼类居住环境远远好于TI，反正把原因尽可能展开，题目里面也没有说清楚，这些完全可以当作反驳的例证,选择1到2个详细的说明一下，论证又深入了，字数也上去了。而作者的文章当中，就一句空话：we must take all potential and conceivable factors into consideration.就没了。再来，题目有交代过，TI的保护范围20miles OI只有10miles.这么明显的地区差异，简直就是把脸送上来让你抽耳光了，没有道理放过的啊。

第二段是讲引起鱼类减少的原因，研究一下3个词：倾倒（指类似填海造陆地那种，可以勉强算是污染的一种），石油钻探，过度捕捞，可以发现石油钻探和过度捕捞已经没有什么深入辩驳的余地了，但是！污染这个词，可以继续深入的探究，首先，题目只说了禁止了倾倒，除开倾倒以外，就没有别的污染方式了么？我想至少我们都知道好几个，比如说生活垃圾，比如说空气污染，再来让步一下，即使没有传统污染，就没有别的污染方式了么？声音污染，光污染（岛上照明设备之类的）都可以纳入考虑啊，而且非传统污染更不容易被发现，更有辩驳力。再来，即使没有污染，才是你所说的几个其他理由：海洋洋流改变、气候因素、生物种群迁徙、食物链异常等，兄弟你一下子跳过了这么多可以说的内容直接抛出最后几个可能，是不是思维跳跃太大了呢？当然论证的深度就大打折扣了。

第三段，以人为本，这个论述段实在是太空洞了，就是说建立在纯理论的基础上的，常人很难理解。正如同毛主席说：我们要建设伟大的新中国！大家都知道是对的，但是怎样建设，什么才算伟大，这两个定义不出来，大家完全都不知道到底该做什么，但是五年计划一出来，所有人都知道了：哦，我按照上面写的做就是。因此，口号跟论证的区别就是一个空洞，一个具体。在没有充分的定义的基础上，很难把口号讲清楚。所以，像这种很难具体化，或者说即使具体化，也说不清楚，至少在规定时间内说不清楚的东西，就不要去写它了，非常容易起反效果。

这个ARGU可以辩驳的东西非常之多，建议看看其他同学的提纲，有助于找到更多的破题点。


[ 本帖最后由 irvine666 于 2008-12-30 20:07 编辑 ]

goingeastUID: 2439824

很好啊，茅塞顿开！:handshake
还有就是，我认为每段的论点之间也要存在一些内在的联系，这一点也很重要，例如，每段之间是递进关系，会比简单的并列更有深度，另外正如irvine所说，思路的跳跃，会造成文章空洞，这一点也是我所忽略的，对于每一个论点，我们确实会有很多深层次的思考，这样字数自然会上去。
感谢讨论！

stupidken2oUID: 2541049

楼上各位使我醍醐灌顶啊。。。一定要加油！

stupidken2oUID: 2541049

特别感激irvine的评价。。。