argument131 vivien4月作文小组3月25日第一次作业

vivien3773UID：2308910

argument131


In this argument, the author concludes that adopting regulations which was already adopted by
Omni(O) is the best way to restore Tria(T)'s fish poppulations and protect the Marine wildlife
of T. To justify this assertion, the author points out that T's previous regulations was useless.
Moremver, the author also points out that the regulations adopted by O was effective. As discussed
bellow, all the assumptions cited by the author were not well supported and therefore the conclusion
of this argument is unconvincing.

First of all, the author falsely assume that T had adopted regulations ban polluting sea within
20 miles of T, then the decline of fish population in T was not caused by pollution but by overfishing.
But it is entirly possible that people did not conform the ban of pollution that they continue
to dumping and drilling offshore oil in the sea around T. It is also quite possible that some
other factors polluted the sea water like oil leaking, too much people swimming in the sea which
can also result in the reduce of fish population. Without accounting these possibilities, the author
should not assert that the reason of fish population declining was not pollution.

Second, no reports of signigicant decline of fish population is insufficient to come to the
conclusion that the fish population in O's sea was declined a lot.  The author fails to consider
who reported that the fish population did not reduced a lot and wether the reporter told lies.
Even if the fish population was indeed not reduced in O's sea, no evidence was provided to
demonstrate that it is resulted from O's regulations. It is possible that the number of fish
declined a lot in the sea of O but a large amount of fish moved to O to supply the declined fish.
Lacking detailed analysis of the factors discussed abover, it is foolish to draw the author's
conclusion.

Finally, Even it is true that because of the regulations of O, its fish population had not reduced,
the author should not hastily infer that these regulations was effective in T and adopting these
regulations was the best way to protect the marine wilflife of T. The author overlooks the
difference between T and O. In addition, the author also overlooks other ways to protect the sea
animals of T. FOr example, cleaning the garbage in the sea or putting small fish into the sea.

In summary, the conclusion reached in this argument is not well supported. To make this
argument more persuasive, the author shouled provide the ture reason of fish population declining of T.
Forthermore, the author need to provide more concrete evidence to  demonstrate that the
regulations of O was effective, and we need to know the information about other ways to protect sea animals.

songxjtuUID：2253904

In this argument, the author concludes that adopting regulations which was already adopted by Omni(O) is the best way to restore Tria(T)'s fish po(p)pulations and protect the Marine wildlife of T. To justify this assertion, the author points out that T's previous regulations was useless.Moremver(Moreover), the author also points out that the regulations adopted by O was(regulations 是复数 用were) effective. As discussed bellow, all the assumptions cited by the author werenot well supported and therefore the conclusion of this argument is unconvincing.

First of all, the author falsely assume(assumes) that T had adopted regulations ban polluting sea within 20 miles of T, then the decline of fish population in T was not caused by pollution but by overfishing. But it is entirly(entirely) possible that people did not conform (to) the ban of pollution that they continue to dumping and drilling offshore oil in the sea around T. It is also quite possible that some other factors polluted the sea water like oil leaking, too much people swimming in the sea which can also result in the reduce(reduction 应该用名词吧) of fish population. Without accounting these possibilities, the author should not assert that the reason of fish population declining was not pollution.

Second, no reports of signig(f)icant decline of fish population is insufficient to come to the conclusion that the fish population in O's sea was declined(直接用decline 就可以了的主动形式就可以了)a lot.  The author fails to consider who reported that the fish population did not reduced a lot and w(h)ether the reporter told lies.Even if the fish population was indeed not reduced in O's sea, no evidence was provided to demonstrate that it is resulted from O's regulations. It is possible that the number of fish declined a lot in the sea of O but a large amount of fish moved to O to supply the declined fish.Lacking detailed analysis of the factors discussed abover(above), it is foolish to draw the author's conclusion.

Finally, Even it is true that because of the regulations of O, its fish population had not reduced,the author should not hastily infer that these regulations was effective in T and adopting these regulations was the best way to protect the marine wilflife(wildlife) of T. The author overlooks the difference between T and O. In addition, the author also overlooks other ways to protect the sea animals of T.（感觉这块分析的不够深入 若把O T的可能差异指出来并批驳可能更好） For(for) example, cleaning the garbage in the sea or putting small fish into the sea(没有谓语 clean the garbage in the sea or put small fish into the sea can also be a nice way……).

In summary, the conclusion reached in this argument is not well supported. To make this argument more persuasive, the author shouled(should) provide the ture(true) reason of fish population declining of T. F(o->u)rthermore, the author need to provide more concrete evidence to  demonstrate that the regulations of O was effective, and we need to know the information about other ways to protect sea animals

主要逻辑错误都攻击到了 而且逻辑很清楚，单词打错了不少（和我一样呵呵），有些地方分析的不够深入 只是提到了
还有一个重要问题时态个人认为应该都用现在时因为题目中没有明确指出是过去而且现在仍旧是这样的
再有就是开头和结尾写法有待于探讨，感觉如果写的很多，正文很难扩展　我现在也矛盾ing
第一次改作文 若有不妥就指出 一起加油！



[ 本帖最后由 songxjtu 于 2007-3-26 16:37 编辑 ]

vivien3773UID：2308910

非常感谢您的修改，自己改过了还是打错了那么多单词。实在头痛，而且打得过程中慢不说还老错总得修改。
目前ARGUMENT 老是限不下时间，倒觉得ISSUE好限点。
谢谢你指出的错误，很有帮助。继续努力。