argument131 欢迎拍砖，拍后请留链接

childrenqUID: 2109575

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."
The author of this newsletter asserts that adopting the regulations of Omni is needed to restore Tria's fish populations and to protect all of Tria's marine wildlife. After well considering, several flaws can found in this argument.



The author of this newsletter asserts that adopting the regulations of Omni is needed to restore Tria's fish populations and to protect all of Tria's marine wildlife. Atfer well considering, several flaws can found in this argument.

First of all, the author's saying that "currently many fish populations in Tria's waters are declining" is vague. Which study does this saying come from? Is it conducted by authorized institution? What is the degree of the decline? A little or large quantity? Which kind of fish's population is declining? Marine mammals or fish? All these questions above should be answered in order to let the government know the situation of the decrease of fish's population.

In addition, there is no evidence shows that overfishing is the cause of the decline. Is any survey conducted to find if there are a lot of people go fishing? Why is pollution impossible? May be it is caused by both of fishing and pollution, or even other causes. It is too hasty to say that overfishing is the main factor, the author should provide more evidence.

What is more, if regulations of Omni are adopted, the Tria may be lack of food. The argument does not mention the population in the island. May be the island's population is large and need fish as food. Another possibility is that Tria island produce little food and the people are mainly live on fish. Furthermore, the economy of Tria is depend on the sales of fish is also possible.

Finally, the author overlooks the necessity of restoring fish's population and protecting wildlife. Is there any kind of fish facing with extinction? Is there any evidence reveals that the wildlife in Tria is threatened? If the ecological balance in Tria is steady, the current regulations should be retained.

In sum, this argument is unconvincing to suggest that adopting the regulations of Omni is the best way to restore fish's population, and the necessity is still undecided.

[ Last edited by childrenq on 2005-8-25 at 10:36 ]

夜一UID: 2130338

The author of this newsletter asserts that adopting the regulations of Omni is needed to restore Tria's fish populations and to protect all of Tria's marine wildlife. Atfer well considering, several flaws can found in this argument.这句话的语法有问题，consider的主语应该是人，但是句子的主语是flaws，这是不对的，建议改成 After well considering, we can find several flaws in this argument

First of all, the author's sayingsaying 不太好吧，是不是改成 view that "currently many fish populations in Tria's waters are declining" is vague. Which study does this saying come from? Is it conducted by authorized institution? What is the degree of the decline? A little or large quantity? Which kind of fish's population is declining? Marine mammals or fish? All these questions above should be answered in order to let the government know the situation of the decrease of fish's population.我觉得这个问题并不是重点，本文的重点不在于Tria' fish population 有没有减少，而是减少的原因到底是不是 overfish，是不是真的不是 pollution

In addition, there is no evidence shows that overfishing is the cause of the decline. Is any survey conducted to find if there are a lot of people go fishing? Why is pollution impossible?具体一点，怎样possible by pollution的？ May be it is caused by both of fishing and pollution, or even other causes.也具体一点，哪些other causes？ It is too hasty to say that overfishing is the main factor, the author should provide more evidence.这段的主要问题是太抽象，最好给出具体的情景，更容易说服别人相信decline in fish population 不一定是overfishing 的错，也不一定不是pollution的错。 另外注意到Tria是20 miles，但Omni是10miles，要真的是pollution的错，改成Omni's regulations, Tria就要真得很惨了

What is more, if regulations of Omni are adopted, the Tria may be lack of food. The argument does not mention the population in the island. May be the island's population is large and need fish as food. Another possibility is that Tria island produce little food and the people are mainly live on fish. Furthermore, the economy of Tria is depend on the sales of fish is also possible.

Finally, the author overlooks the necessity of restoring fish's population and protecting wildlife. Is there any kind of fish facing with extinction? Is there any evidence reveals that the wildlife in Tria is threatened? If the ecological balance in Tria is steady, the current regulations should be retained.

In sum, this argument is unconvincing to suggest that adopting the regulations of Omni is the best way to restore fish's population, and the necessity is still undecided.

有一个很大的问题：应该注意到aguer的本意是要protect fish population and marine wildlife，至于岛上的economy，人们的feeding问题都不是他要解决的，他可能只是一个单纯的生态保护主义者。所以我们去要求他考虑这样那样的问题是不明智的，最好的办法还是直接反驳他，以他的手段非但达不到他的目的，还有可能与他的本初背道而驰
我们写argument，是ETS要考我们的逻辑，所以最重要的是找题中的逻辑问题，而不是找arguer的思想性缺陷，比如他要保护生态，我们不能说他不关心政治和经济，比如说他要赚钱，我们也不能说他不关心科学和艺术，arguer有没有人格问题并不重要，重要的是他的逻辑问题在哪里
可能话说得有点狠了，希望你不要介意。当然我也不是什么很牛的人，难免会有一些地方理解错误， 你觉得不对的地方请尽量提出来，大家一起讨论一起进步：）

夜一UID: 2130338

我的文章：
https://bbs.gter.net/viewthread.php?tid=326120
请多多指教，谢谢：）

夜一UID: 2130338

针对你后来题的一些问题，我的主要观点是，我们要站在arguer的立场上的反驳他
注意到题目中说了这些文字是摘自环境新闻的，所以我们就要站在一个环境保护者的角度去说，而不能站在一个普通人，甚至一个经济学家的立场去说，否则说不定会被判做跑题的
当然，一些题目，比如关于市政机关的，我们的确可以又谈政治又谈经济，那毕竟是他们都要干的事，但是像这道题，对于一个环境保护者来说，政治和经济都是没什么意义的

www.feng.ruiUID: 2117536

分析不透彻   分段太多了

amanda2005UID: 2120493

其实我觉得childrenq的问题，给出了很多问题给别人，引起了读者的歧异。
有一种错误类别是 failing to weigh the advantages and disadvantages thoroughly
我觉得childrenq的想法是对的，就是说如果禁止捕鱼的话会不会带来其他不良后果