Argument131 【0706G－LOVEAW小组】第14次作业

小猫儿UID: 2297873

131.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."

1、  Tria岛是否存在过量捕鱼
2、  Tria岛是否排除了污染的可能
3、  两到情况是否相同

TIME：30min  WORDS:531
The conclusion that the decline in fish populations in Tria’s waters results from the overfishing but not pollution and the recommendation that Tria Island adopt regulations of the Omni are draw in the argument on basis of the comparison of the fish populations and the regulations for sea management in the two islands. Close scrutiny reveals the argument lends little support to the conclusion and the recommendation.

First, it is assumed that Tria has a problem of overfishing which leads to the decline of the fish population. However, the arguer provides no information about it. Neither the population of the fishers nor the quantity of fish obtained every year is recorded in the argument. It is fairly possible that Tria has very few fishers. Moreover, few fish is obtained from the sea every year because of the residents in Tria do not like eating fish at all. At the same time, the transportation conditions are so poor that redundant fish can not be sold to other cities. In such case, the fishes has no interests from fishing and thus they do not rather fish. It is also possible that the residents in Tria make money by attract people to spend holidays on the beach so that they have no need to earn a living by fishing. Without ruling out these possibilities, it is absurd to assume simply that Tria has a problem of overfishing. The rather more ridiculous conclusion is that the decline in fish population is the result of overfishing.

Secondly, it is assumed that Tria has no problem of water pollution, which has no evidence to prove. The arguer simply asserts that it is banned to dump and to drill offshore oil. However, it is possible that the execution of the ban is so powerless that there are still plenty of people dumping as well as drilling offshore oil. Even if they do not do such deeds, chances are too many people swim in the sea for recreational activities that the quality of the water goes down day by day. It is also possible that there are too many oxygen-consumed bacteria in the sea which drive the fish die of lacking oxygen. Without detailed information about the quality of the sea water, it is imprudent to rule out the possibility that the decline of the fish population results from the water pollution.

Finally, even if the two assumptions above are true, it is dubious whether the two islands have the same water conditions which can bolster the recommendation that Tria copy the regulations of Omni. It is possible that Omni has the sea in the water of which temperature is lower and thus more oxygen exists while Tria has the water of higher temperature and has less oxygen to feed large quantity of fish. In such case, merely copying the regulations to limit the activities of human beings instead of compensate the content of oxygen in the water has no effect to increase the fish population in the sea of Tria.

To sum up, no sufficient information can bolster the arguer’s conclusion, and at the same the recommendation is unconvincing. Tria should investigate more deeply before taking any actions.

[ 本帖最后由 小猫儿 于 2007-3-1 10:41 编辑 ]

iq28UID: 2152875

怎么思路跟那个242题库分析的思路一样....嘿嘿

The conclusion that the decline in fish populations in Tria’s waters results from the overfishing but not pollution and the recommendation that Tria Island adopt regulations of the Omni are draw in the argument on basis of the comparison of the fish populations and the regulations for sea management in the two islands. Close scrutiny reveals the argument lends little support to the conclusion and the recommendation.

First, it is assumed that Tria has a problem of overfishing which leads to the decline of the fish population. However, the arguer provides no information about it. Neither the population of the fishers nor the quantity of fish obtained every year is recorded in the argument. It is fairly possible that Tria has very few fishers. Moreover, (下面两句是解释为什么很少有fishers,所以不太应该用moreover的递进) few fish is obtained from the sea every year because of the residents in Tria do not like eating fish at all. At the same time, the transportation conditions are so poor that redundant fish can not be sold to other cities. In such case, the fishes has no interests from fishing and thus they do not rather fish. (这句话从句意到语法上我都有点晕...应该是限时的原因吧呵呵) It is also possible that the residents in Tria make money by attract (语法) people to spend holidays on the beach so that they have no need to earn a living by fishing. Without ruling out these possibilities, it is absurd to assume simply that Tria has a problem of overfishing. The rather more ridiculous conclusion is that the decline in fish population is the result of overfishing. (相当不错)

Secondly, it is assumed that Tria has no problem of water pollution, (有点绝对,只要说明鱼的数目下降不是因为污染就可以了,或者说明污染防治法案没有发挥效果,不要说没有污染) which has no evidence to prove. The arguer simply asserts that it is banned to dump and to drill offshore oil. However, it is possible that the execution of the ban is so powerless that there are still plenty of people dumping as well as drilling offshore oil. Even if they do not do such deeds, chances are too many people swim in the sea for recreational activities that the quality of the water goes down day by day. (人类游泳降低水质...真的么...-_-|||) It is also possible that there are too many oxygen-consumed bacteria (你是学生物的么?限时还能想到这个啊~强!) in the sea which drive the fish die of lacking oxygen. Without detailed information about the quality of the sea water, it is imprudent to rule out the possibility that the decline of the fish population results from the water pollution.

(赞,因为你的思路我当时没有敢用,因为觉得1不是过度捕捞造成2并非不是污染造成;这两个理由argu起来理由可能会重叠,因为都要说到可能是别的什么理由.你的思路则是第一个body重点说明为什么不是fishing,第二个段落则说了可能的防治法案无用,再点了一个别的可能性,很好.我则是把它们都归结在了与另外一个岛的类比里面,这样导致找别的错误会比较困难)

Finally, even if the two assumptions above are true, it is dubious whether the two islands have the same water conditions which can bolster the recommendation that Tria copy the regulations of Omni. It is possible that Omni has the sea in the water of which temperature is lower and thus more oxygen exists while Tria has the water of higher temperature and has less oxygen to feed large quantity of fish. In such case, merely copying the regulations to limit the activities of human beings instead of compensate the content of oxygen in the water has no effect to increase the fish population in the sea of Tria. (点明了T岛鱼数量下降的原因不是作者提出的false dilemma,可能有更多情况.这段有点单薄,可能是时间不够了呵呵)

To sum up, no sufficient information can bolster the arguer’s conclusion, and at the same the recommendation is unconvincing. Tria should investigate more deeply before taking any actions.

嗯~嗯~至少5分~个人感觉^_^
加油! 限时写500多字不错了

[ 本帖最后由 iq28 于 2007-3-7 23:49 编辑 ]