argument131 51互助组 by ruczephyr

foreveraUID: 202035

题目：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."
字数：625          用时：00:30:00          日期：2007-7-5 15:55:28

The passage is presented to suggest the marine sanctuary of Tria Island to adopt the same regulations as the Omni Island of banning fishing near within 10 miles to protect fish population. To substantiate the point, the author provides evidences that there is no significant decline in fish population reported in Omin. The argument looks reasonable at the first glance, however, in-depth scrutiny reveals several fallacies the argument suffers as follows.

First and foremost, the reports of Omni can not validate that there is no significant decline of fish population in the water near the Omni Island.  It is entirely possible that the surveyors who made the reports are not equipped with necessary facilitates so that they are not able to make precise statistic of the fish population. And also perhaps, the surveyor deliberately omitted the areas where just experience a drop of fish population to show the effect of the regulation of banning fishing. While, in fact, great amounts of fish died and its population decreased dramatically, which are not objectively reflected in the reports. Thus, under this circumstance, the reports are so suspicious that it can not serve as evidence to support the point.

What is more, even grant that the fish population in the water near the Omni Island do not reduce, whether the maintenance of fish population is caused by the regulations of banning fishing is still open to doubt. Many other potential possibilities might lead to the result. In the first place, it is possible that the residents on the Omni Island have the habit of adding young fish into the water annually to keep the fish population. And in the second, perhaps, there might be a regular migration of fish from other areas every year to enrich the fish population for Omin, which is the main habitat for such migrating fishes. As a result, the author fails to consider other possible reasons rather than banning fishing for a stable population of fish.

In addition, the author unfairly excludes other possible reasons that might attribute to the decline of the fish population. And such possibilities might involve natural diseases, regular migration to other water areas. Each of the possibility above is able to cause the present decline of fish near Tria alone. And what is important, pullution, already accepted as reason for the shrink of fish group, should not be neglected to explain such decline. As the author does not mention the water quality near the Tria Island, I have enough reasons to doubt that the industries keep on polluting the water, which largely harms the living environment of the fish group, and finally caused masses of dead fish. In consequence, without ruling other possible reasons, the author's hastiness seriously undermines the credibility of the argument.

Last but not least, the blind adoption of the same regulation of Omni would not be a wise choice and work well without necessary comparisons between the two islands. It is possible that the situations of the two islands are totally different. On the one hand, it is possible that the residents living on the Tria Island are not used to fish all the year round, while in contrast, people in Omni are fond of fishing for entertainment. On the other hand, the economy of Tria might largely depend on fishing, accordingly, the banish upon fish would seriously reduce daily income for both government and the residents. Naturally, the changes of regulations would arouse grouch and resistance from the local people. Thus, the author's suggestion is not well-reasoned to have the point convinced.

In brief, the argument is made on the basis of several ungrounded evidences, to better improve the argument ,the author needs to provides detailed information to verify all the suspicions above.

TidusnakeUID: 2281340

题目：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."字数：625          用时：00:30:00          日期：2007-7-5 15:55:28The passage is presented to suggest the marine sanctuary of Tria Island to adopt the same regulations as the Omni Island of banning fishing near within 10 miles to protect fish population. To substantiate the point, the author provides evidences that there is no significant decline in fish population reported in Omin. The argument looks reasonable at the first glance, however, in-depth scrutiny reveals several fallacies the argument suffers as follows. First and foremost, the reports of Omni can not validate that there is no significant decline of fish population in the water near the Omni Island. It is entirely possible that the surveyors who made the reports are not equipped with necessary facilitates so that they are not able to make precise statistic of the fish population. And also perhaps, the surveyor deliberately omitted the areas where just experience a drop of fish population to show the effect of the regulation of banning fishing. While, in fact, great amounts of fish died and its population decreased dramatically, which are not objectively reflected in the reports. Thus, under this circumstance, the reports are so suspicious that it can not serve as evidence to support the point.What is more, even grant that the fish population in the water near the Omni Island do not reduce, whetherthe maintenance of fish population is caused by the regulations of banning fishing is still open to doubt. Many other potential possibilities might lead to the result. In the first place, it is possible that the residents on the Omni Island have the habit of adding young fish into the water annually to keep the fish population. And in the second, perhaps, there might be a regular migration of fish from other areas every year to enrich the fish population for Omin, which is the main habitat for such migrating fishes. As a result, the author fails to consider other possible reasons rather than banning fishing for a stable population of fish.In addition, the author unfairly excludes other possible reasons that might attribute to the decline of the fish population. And such possibilities might involve natural diseases, regular migration to other water areas. Each of the possibility above is able to cause the present decline of fish near Tria alone. And what is important, pullution, already accepted as reason for the shrink of fish group, should not be neglected to explain such decline. As the author does not mention the water quality near the Tria Island, I have enough reasons to doubt that the industries keep on polluting the water, which largely harms the living environment of the fish group, and finally caused masses of dead fish. In consequence, without ruling other possible reasons, the author's hastiness seriously undermines the credibility of the argument.Last but not least, the blind adoption of the same regulation of Omni would not be a wise choice and work well without necessary comparisons between the two islands. It is possible that the situations of the two islands are totally different. On the one hand, it is possible that the residents living on the Tria Island are not used to fish all the year round, while in contrast, people in Omni are fond of fishing for entertainment. On the other hand, the economy of Tria might largely depend on fishing, accordingly, the banish upon fish would seriously reduce daily income for both government and the residents. Naturally, the changes of regulations would arouse grouch and resistance from the local people. Thus, the author's suggestion is not well-reasoned to have the point convinced.In brief, the argument is made on the basis of several ungrounded evidences, to better improve the argument ,the author needs to provides detailed information to verify all the suspicions above.

红色那句有点累赘哦，上一句就讲 因为这种结论本来就很笼统

[ 本帖最后由 Tidusnake 于 2007-7-7 21:42 编辑 ]