GRE Argument Essay 212
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.”
The above article appeared in an environmental newsletter published in Tria Island. The arguer wants to recommend abandoning of Tria’s marine wildlife regulations and adopt those of Omni. The arguer gives various arguments in support of his stand. The arguer states that in spite of its regulations of ban on dumping and offshore oil drilling within 20 miles of Tria, fish population in Tria is declining but fishing is not banned. On the contrary 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. Therefore, it is evident from the comparison that because fishing was not banned in Tria, fish population in Tria declined. The arguer recommends adopting regulations of Omni and abandoning those of Tria.
The first argument which the arguer presents in favor of his argument is the declining fish population in the waters of Tria because fishing in not banned but dumping and offshore oil drilling is banned within 20 miles of Tria. It is also possible that in some season the fish population was declining and fish were moving to some colder or hotter places. The arguer also fails to mention the exact number of people going for fishing and also how often they were going on fishing. The arguer has not mentioned whether or not majority of people in Tria are fishers or not. If not then they are only going for fishing occasionally and it certainly does not affect the fish population of Tria.
The arguer is only blaming fishing to be the cause of decline in fish population. It is also possible that that place is often visited by tourists and over a period fish have started preferring deeper waters. It is also possible that the fish in the area are prey to most marine mammals and the number of mammals is increasing because they are protected in the sanctuary and they are feeding more and more on fish of that area. The arguer fails to bring into notice that the banning is only within 20 miles but it is very much possible that the dump is floating in the waters through some other dumping and oil drilling which is little further than 20 miles.
The arguer fails to bring into notice the fact that in Tria the ban is within 20 miles and in Omni it is within 10 miles which means that the fish population is within 20 miles in Tria and 10 miles of Omni. Therefore, the ban can not be reduced to that of 10 miles in Tria. The two areas are entirely different that is why in the first place their regulations were different. Then how can the regulations are made the same? It is practically not possible.
The arguments presented by the arguer are absolutely baseless and insignificant. Therefore, the recommendation by the arguer should not be accepted.