argument131 G89-互助社 几天没写阿狗了，不知有没退步阿。欢迎来拍~

mvpzhuangUID: 205051

Arg131
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.'

In this argument, the author concludes that the decline in fish populations in Tria's waters is the result of overfishing, not pollution. And the author further recommends that Tria should take the regulations of Omni to protect both fish and marine wildlife. To support this point, the author cites many evidence which are all unpersuasive after careful scrutiny.

First of all, the author fails to give any credible evidence to refute the decline in fish population is due to overfishing. There are no statistics about the number of fishermen and the increase in the amount of fish. It is entirely possible that the population of fish in Tria is so small that no fisherman fishes there. Or perhaps, many kinds of fish there have faced with extinction. All above-mentioned render the author's assertion unconvincing that decreases in fish population is contributed to overfishing.

Second, there is no evidence to prove pollution is not the reason for the decline. The argument did not tell us the change of the quality of the water. Worse quality of water is entirely possible results in fish declining. Another possibility is that there were also some people dumped and offshore oil in Tria although there is a ban. No one can sure that all people abided it. Or perhaps, during these times, there had one or more oil leak events occurred suddenly that polluted the water. The two possibilities infer that may be the loose management or some unforeseen sudden events attribute to worse quality of water that influence the fish, not the regulation itself.

Third, the marine sanctuary on Tria Island was established to protect certain marine mammals not fish, for fish is not mammal. Maybe the regulations carried out by Tria are quite efficient to protect marine mammals. Better than those in Omni. It is only necessary for Tria to add some regulations to protect fish which can reach the purpose of the author.

Finally, even if the regulations taken by Tria are not good, the best way to protect both fish and Tria's marine wildlife is not to adopt those of Omni. For one thing, the author did not tell us anything about the situation of both areas. Perhaps the kinds of fish and mammals are too different in them. The way of Omni may not property for Tria. For another, there is not only one system of regulations which is taken by Omni. Other area's regulation should also be studied carefully. And, moreover, the regulations which are specific established to meet the actual condition for Tria can do better affect than only simply adopt others.

To sum up, the author's conclusion is weak supported. To convince me, the author must cite more credible evidence to prove the decline of fish in Tria is due to overfishing. To better assess the recommendation, I need more information about the regulations taken by Omni to analyze whether them fit Tria.

几天没写速度慢了，而且觉得废话好多。。。。罗嗦的呢:L

[ Last edited by staralways on 2005-8-10 at 14:18 ]

polymathUID: 179557

帮你顶！:)

liulin12369UID: 2112878

argument131 G89-互助社 几天没写阿狗了，不知有没退步阿。欢迎来拍~Arg131The 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.'In this argument, the author concludes that the decline in fish populations in Tria's waters is the result of overfishing, not pollution. And the author further recommends that Tria should take the regulations of Omni to protect both fish and marine wildlife. To support this point, the author cites many evidence which are all unpersuasive after careful scrutiny. First of all, the author fails to give any credible evidence to refute the decline in fish population is due to overfishing. There are no statistics about the number of fishermen and the increase in the amount of fish. It is entirely possible that the population of fish in Tria is so small that no fisherman fishes there. Or perhaps, many kinds of fish there have faced with extinction. All above-mentioned render the author's assertion unconvincing that decreases in fish population is contributed to overfishing.Second, there is no evidence to prove pollution is not the reason for the decline. The argument did not tell us the change of the quality of the water. Worse quality of water is entirely possible results in fish declining. Another possibility is that there were also some people dumped and offshore（这里是个形容词，题目说offshore oil drilling） oil in Tria although（只能用在句首） there is a ban. No one can sure(这个不是动词) that all people abided it. Or perhaps, during these times, there had one or more oil leak events occurred suddenly that polluted the water. The two possibilities infer（这个词得主语好像记得是人，推断的意思） that may be the loose management or some unforeseen sudden events attributing to worse quality of water that influence the fish, not the regulation itself.（总结得不错）Third, the marine sanctuary on Tria Island was established to protect certain marine mammals（后面的用法很少见，可以这么接？） not fish, for fish is not mammal. （有的鱼也是哺乳动物，比如鲸鱼鲨鱼，但不都是）Maybe the regulations carried out by Tria are quite efficient to protect marine mammals. Better than those in Omni. It is only necessary for Tria to add some regulations to protect fish, which can reach the purpose of the author. (这一点批的奇怪，regulation说得清楚，没有保护鱼了。鱼少了，所以要保护像别人一样。可是你的意思没有批，跟人家意思一样，也说要保护。不知道批在哪里了)Finally, even if the regulations taken by Tria are not good, the best way to protect both fish and Tria's marine wildlife is not to adopt those of Omni（不要说这么绝对，就说学了不一定好就行了，不能说肯定学不好）. For one thing, the author did not tell us anything about the situation of both areas. Perhaps the kinds of fish and mammals are too different in them. The way of Omni may not（be） property for Tria. For another, there is not only one system of regulations, which is taken by Omni. Other area's regulation should also be studied carefully.（你说别的条款也起了作用，意思明确一点，说得很好） And, moreover, the regulations, which are specific established to meet the actual condition for Tria can, do better affect（这个词为动词，不能这么用吧） than only simply adopt others.To sum up, the author's conclusion is weak(weakly) supported. To convince me, the author must cite more credible evidence to prove the decline of fish in Tria is due to overfishing. To better assess the recommendation, I need more information about the regulations taken by Omni to analyze whether them fit Tria.

liulin12369UID: 2112878

晕，怎么这样了~~汗

mvpzhuangUID: 205051

谢谢哈
这篇自我感觉不好。。。

Other area's regulation should also be studied carefully.（你说别的条款也起了作用，意思明确一点，说得很好）
我是说应该还有别的地区的方法比Omni得好