The author’s argument appears to be based on two faulty premises that, when combined, result in a troubling conclusion. First, the author assumes that the tartfish population will always be abundant. Since the author does not cite any data to support this claim, it must be taken at face value. Second, the author assumes that the tartfish population will forever remain fixed, unaffected by any changes in fishing technology or demand. In reality, both these assumptions are incorrect. Firstly, the tartfish population could be severely depleted due to overfishing. If the population of this fish is declining, then it follows that the fishing industry is already overfishing it. Thus, any attempt to claim that fishing can continue without restrictions is blatantly false. Secondly, the tartfish population could increase, in which case the fishing industry would have more fish to sell, and thus, would be able to stay afloat. Furthermore, the fishing industry could expand to different areas, such as Asia, where demand for shellfish is exponentially greater than in the US. Thus, the argument that government regulation is the only answer is completely misguided. Instead of restricting fishing, the government should encourage it, particularly in areas where the tartfish population is high

The author’s argument contains several other flaws. First, the author uses two incomplete phrases, such as ‘tartfish population’ and ‘tartfish industry.’ It is unclear why the writer has chosen to use these terms instead of ‘red snapper population’ or ‘red snapper industry.’ If he had meant to refer to the population of a particular species, then the sentence would have been clearer. Moreover, it is not clear what the writer means when he refers to the tartfish industry. Is he referring to the entire fishing industry, or is he referring to a specific subset of the fishing industry, such as sport fishing? If the latter, then, as he himself acknowledges, the tartfish population could change over time. Also, since ‘tartfish’ is an adjective, it is not clear how the writer is using the word. Does he mean the tart fish itself, or does he mean the act of catching them?If the author is referring to the tartfish species, then the reasoning above also applies. When discussing the tartfish population, he states, ‘As the catches get bigger, the tartfish population will be dangerously depleted.’ This sentence is ambiguous. Does this refer to the tartfish population as a whole, or does it refer to a specific population? If the writer is referring to the tartfish population as a whole, then his argument would make perfect sense, since if the population of this species is declining, then fishing those fish will deplete them as well. However, if he is referring specifically to a subpopulation of tartfish, then this population could grow and thrive, even if the total population of tartfish declines. Furthermore, if fishing technology improves, then the article’s argument would be invalidated, since the increased efficiency in catching fish would allow more fish to be caught, thus resulting in more profit for the fishing industry

Second, the author uses the phrase ‘tartfish population’ twice in the same sentence. The use of this phrase is redundant, since the tartfish population is what he refers to, and the population must be referred to by name in order for there to be any danger. Also, the phrase ‘tartfish population’ is vague. What is meant by ‘population’? Presumably, the writer is referring to the total number of tartfish. However, the tartfish population could be declining, but the total population of tartfish could still increase. Thus, the phrase ‘tartfish population’ has no clear meaning in this context

Third, the author’s logic is flawed. He assumes that the tartfish population is static. This assumption cannot be true, since the population of any species will inevitably decrease over time due to natural causes such as disease and predation. Furthermore, the tartfish population could be decreasing due to overfishing, in which case, any fishing restrictions would decrease the number of tartfish available to fishermen. Thus, the author cannot be arguing that the government should continue to allow fishing throughout the year, since any restriction would decrease the total amount of tartfish available to fishermen, thus making it impossible for them to make a living

Finally, the author’s conclusion is flawed. He argues that ‘tartfish-fishing should be allowed only during the three-month summer season, when tartfish reproduce and thus are most numerous, rather than throughout the year.’ However, this assertion is not logically correct. If the population of tartfish is declining, then the number of tartfish available during the summer will be smaller, and, without a significant decrease in the population, fishermen will still be able to catch enough tartfish to make a living. Thus, the author’s conclusion is based on an assumption that is not necessarily correct.