How do these passages differ in their ideas about the Magnuson Fishery and Conservation Act?
A
The author of the first passage believes that the Act is damaging, and the author of the second passage
agrees with this idea.
B.
The second author believes that the Act is helpful for international fisheries, while the first author believes
it is helpful for U. S. fisheries.
The first author believes that the Act is helpful in protecting our waters from foreign fisheries. The second
author disagrees.
D.
The first author warns that the Act is insufficient, while the second author argues that it may be too strict

i don't really know the circumstances. i personally think not due to it not being fair for all parties and how hated i'd become if i thought it was a good thing.

in other words

to put it differently

for one thing

as an illustration

in this case

for this reason

to put it another way

that is to say

with attention to

by all means

important to realize

another key point

first thing to remember

most compelling evidence

must be remembered

point often overlooked

to point out

on the positive side

on the negative side

with this in mind

notably

including

like

to be sure

namely

chiefly

truly

indeed

certainly

surely

markedly

such as

especially

explicitly

specifically

expressly

surprisingly

frequently

significantly

particularly

in fact

in general

in particular

in detail

for example

for instance

to demonstrate

to emphasize

to repeat

to clarify

to explain

to enumerate

the time most likely will repeat, in the story.

what are the options?