argument131(各位大人能不能给我稍微看一下看能得多少分,还有五天就考了)

rienziUID: 2402391

"为我所用"小组第十七次作业


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: 357          TIME: 00:30:00          DATE: 2008-4-11 11:37:27



    The arguer tells us that fish populations in Tria's waters are declining. He concludes that this is because the overfishing of Tria's waters. To support his conclusion, he makes a comparison between the regulations in Omni Island and those in Tria Island. He explains the comparison and suggests that Tria should adopt the regulations of Omni in order to preserve marine wildlife there. Although the discussion of the arguer seems reasonable, it is not difficult to pick out some fatal fallacies from it after careful scrutiny.
    Firstly, the arguer concludes that the decline of marine mammals in Tria is due to overfishing, but he does not do any survey about the condition of fishing condition in Tria waters. Without specific investigation, no one can make clear whether the declining of fish populations in Tria is due to overfishing or not. Thus, the arguer has made a mistake that he has imagined a reason for which fish populations are declining in Tria only through a specious comparison of the regulations of the two areas, without a specific survey. This is obviously a fatal deficit of his discussion.
    Secondly, there is no evidence to throw out the judgment that the declining of fish populations in Tria Island is due to pollution. We do not know whether the waters of Tria has been polluted or not, but we can not judge that it has not been polluted. The arguer fails to convince us that pollution is not the reason of the decline of fish populations because he does not mention the water condition of Tria Island. Even if dumping and offshore oil drilling has been banned in Tria, we can not conclude that citizens there confirm to this ban carefully. This is another fallacy.
    Thirdly, even if overfishing is the reason for which fish populations in Tria are declining, we can not make clear whether the adoption of the regulations in Omni will be effective. Whether citizens in Tria will fulfill the regulations
    Given the discussion above, the arguer's conclusion is unreasonable. More should be done and more should be concerned to support his conclusion or make him discard it.




写完第二段以后发现写跑题了，
所以第四段没写完,
请帮我看一下我大概能得多少分,
以后五天要怎么提高,
谢谢了


[ 本帖最后由 rienzi 于 2008-4-11 15:02 编辑 ]