Argument131 第10篇 限时居然失败了，字数也下降了，修改得最辛苦的一篇！

amanda1011UID: 2106668

------摘要------
作者：寄托家园作文版普通用户     共用时间：29分44秒     381 words (rivsed 457 words)
从2005年7月5日23时45分到2005年7月6日0时29分

------题目------
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.'

------正文------
The conclusion that the best way to restore Tria Island's fish populations and to protect all of Tria's marine wildlife is to adopt those regulations of Omni seems to sound and convincing on the surface. To substantiate it, the arguer points out that Omni ban fishing within 10 miles and there is no significant decline in its fish population. However, a further analysis would reveal that the reasoning in the argument is problematic in several aspects.

In the first place, the most egregious error is that the arguer draws his/her conclusion based on an unwarranted assumption that the decline of fish populations in Tria's water is the result of overfishing. For one thing, we have no idea about the quality of the Tria's water. Is it dirtier than before? It is possible that although the marine sanctuary established the regulations to ban dumping, the owners of local factories still pour off their trash into the water. Since the arguer does not show us that the water remains clean, we have good reason to believe that it is the pollution, not overfishing causes the decline of the fish populations. For another thing, the arguer does not mention a word about the fishers or fishing. Without solid evidence to show the increase in the number of fishers or the phenomenon of overfishing, it is too presumptuous to conclude that the decline of fish populations is the result of overfishing.

Secondly, although Omni reports no significant decline in its fish populations, it does not follow that the fish populations are not less than before because no evidence or solid statistic is offered to convince us of that. Thus, we can not rule out the possibility that Omni does not report the fish populations' change. In that case, it is meaningless for us to adopt the regulations of Omni.

Thirdly, the arguer overlooks that maybe there are a lot of great differences between Omni and Tria. For example, Omni has a great many of fish within 10 miles while few fish can be found in the same range of Tria. The fishers always catch fish in the water from 10 miles to 20 miles of Tria. In that case, the regulations of Omni will be of no help for us.

Last but not least, the arguer commits a "false dilemma". Even if we would abandon our regulations, the best way is not necessary to adopt those of Omni. We could consider some solutions of other islands or revise ourselves.

In sum, the argument is not persuasive as it stands. Unless the arguer provides more detailed evidences about the quality of Tria's water and carries out reliable study about the reason of decline in fish populations, we could hardly accept his/her conclusion.