Argument131=美丽G程小组=小组2月21日作业by独行天下

逆风的船UID: 2724552

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: 434
TIME: 上午 12:30:00
DATE: 2010-1-11

The author asserts the best way to restore the Tria's(T)fish population is to abandon its own regulations and adopt the Omni's(O), which ban dumping, offshore oil drilling and fishing within 10miles. To support his conclusion the author point out that in the regulation of Tria Island, there is no sentence ban the fishing. At the first glance, this is a reasonable argument, but further consider reveals many flaws in it.

To begin with, the mere fact that the currently decline of the fish population in around the Tria island can not indicate the fish population of this area is indeed decreased. Given the fish population of this area is decreased the author unfairly assumption that the reason of the decrease of the fish in the water is only the water pollution and the over fishing. Other factors such as the change of the climate and temperature change of the water can also cause the decrease of the fish population in a certain area of the ocean.


Further more given the factors impact the fish population in the two isolate is the water pollution and the over fishing, the author mentioned no information to prove the water in the around the T island is not polluted. In this concern, I can not be convinced it is the over fishing in the T island made the decrease of the fish population around it. What's more, without the regulation of ban the fishing in the T Island dose not necessarily means the ocean around the T Island is fished by people. Chances are that, the ocean around the T Island is far from the land and few people can get there. In the same concern, the only fact that the fishing action has been ban by the regulation of the O Island can not indicate that there are no people to fish around the island.

Further more may be there are same detail factor make it a proper choice to ban dumping and offshore oil drilling within 20 miles of T island but not within 10 miles, as a result the regulation of the T island may not fit the situation of the O island.

As all mentioned above, the mere fact mentioned by the author fails to support the conclusion of him or her. To bolster the conclusion the author should give detail information about the fish population change of the O island as well as all factors contribute to the change of the fish population at a certain area of the ocean. Only concerned all factors mentioned above can we get a proper method.