[a习作temp] Argument150 我的处子作 [复制链接]

arhoo
UID：180462

初级会员

Rank: 3 Rank: 3

声望: 0
寄托币: 670
注册时间: 2004-9-28
精华: 1
帖子: 0

楼主

发表于 2005-2-27 02:26:23 |只看该作者

Argument150 我的处子作

Argument150 第1篇我的处子作自己已经改了一遍不要告诉我越改越烂了那我要撞死去了
------题目------
The following is a letter to the editor of an environmental magazine.
'The decline in the numbers of amphibians worldwide clearly indicates the global pollution of water and air. Two studies of amphibians in Yosemite National Park in California confirm my conclusion. In 1915 there were seven species of amphibians in the park, and there were abundant numbers of each species. However, in 1992 there were only four species of amphibians observed in the park, and the numbers of each species were drastically reduced. The decline in Yosemite has been blamed on the introduction of trout into the park's waters, which began in 1920 (trout are known to eat amphibian eggs). But the introduction of trout cannot be the real reason for the Yosemite decline because it does not explain the worldwide decline.'
------正文------
In this letter, the author claims that the global pollution of water and air causes the decline of amphibians world wide. He bases his conclusion on two studies done in 1915 and 1992 of amphibians in Yosemite National Park in California, ruling out the introduction of trout as the real reason of the Yosemite decline. This argument clearly commits several fallacies and thus is unconvincing. General statement 过于详细，大可节省

First of all, the two studies which the argument is based on were done at two terminal dates--1915 and 1992. The time span between the two dates are more than 70 years, the period about which the author has not cited any evidence or statistics. 这句话从句用得不舒服Thus without the detailed curve of the number of amphibians in Yosemite during the 77 years, which may help us know more clearly about the overall trend of the transition, we can reach little conclusion about what has happened to the number of amphibians in Yosemite. 缺乏例证，可以对70年间amphibian数量走势进行假想

Moreover, even if we take the decline of Yosemite as granted, the argument commits a hasty generalization.hasty generalization与其用在这里驳“减少”这一现象，不如放在后面驳整个causation的generalization It is merely based on two studies at a specific location----Yosemite National Park. With no matter how detailed data within only one specific location, it is impossible to reach any conclusion about the number of amphibians of the entire globe, for the detailed varieties, climates and geographical conditions that vary from one location to another prevent us from drawing any sweeping genralization as the author has done.

Furthermore, the author rules out a more probable explanation--the introduction of trout--as the reason of amphibians decline and alleges that the pollution is the real reason. Given the fact that tout are known to eat amphibian eggs, the author should cite concrete evidence but not reject such an explanation so curtly. Even the "trout reason" can be rejected, simply rejecting it cannot help us to reach the conclusion that pollution is the real reason since pollution is not the only alternative explanation.要给出具体的alternative explanation Thus this part of author's reasoning is ungrounded and unacceptable.

In conclusion, the argument is not well reasoned. To solidify it, the author should cite more convincing evidence which can indicates a strong correlation of the global decine of amphibian number and global pollution of water and
air.

------自改------
In this letter, the author's establishment of causation between the global air and water pollution and the worldwide decline of amphibian number is unconvincing for it's simply based on the two studies.

First of all, merely two studies in 1915 and 1992 cannot reveal the overall trend of the transition in Yosemite's amphibian number. What should be noticed is that the time span between the two studies is more than 70 years, during which not any data is provided by the author. In fact, the number of amphibians in Yosemite can be highly fluctuant over time. It is possible that the number in these two years were by chance at a crest and a trough respectively. Thus, even whether the number of amphibians in Yosemite has really been decreasing is still debatable.

这里到底需不需要一个moreover?Even if we take the decline in Yosemite as granted, the author's way to explain such a decline as a result of pollution is unacceptable. Fist, given the fact that tout are known to eat amphibian eggs, which can be a probable reason of the amphibian decrease, the author should not curtly deny it without any evidence or reasoning. In addition, simply ruling out the "trout factor" does not necessarily guarantee the pollution to be the only alternative explanation. The amphibians may also decrease due to the decrease of accessible food, the advent of other natural enemies than trout and even the natural extinction.

Furthermore, even if such a causation is valid in Yosemite, the author's extension of this causation to the entire globe is obviously too hasty. The detailed varieties, climates, geographical conditions, and of course, the seriousness of air and water pollution vary from one location to another. Actually, even the worldwide trend of amphibian number cannot be generalized from such a provincial conclusion, not to mention the global cause-and-effect relationship.

In sum, the argument could alert people of a potential effect of pollution on the existence of some animals, the reasoning itself is however not persuasive.

使用道具举报

gira
UID：188010

寄托新兵

Rank: 2

声望: 0
寄托币: 340
注册时间: 2004-12-1
精华: 0
帖子: 0

沙发

发表于 2005-3-10 23:04:13 |只看该作者

阿古。。

原来是阿古？
不好意思偶还没写阿古，过阵来：）

过去的过去，开始的开始
+U +U, lalala~

使用道具举报

gira
UID：188010

寄托新兵

Rank: 2

声望: 0
寄托币: 340
注册时间: 2004-12-1
精华: 0
帖子: 0

板凳

发表于 2005-3-18 10:53:27 |只看该作者

In this letter, the author claims that the global pollution of water and air causes the decline of amphibians world wide. He bases his conclusion on two studies done in 1915 and 1992 of amphibians in Yosemite National Park in California, ruling out the introduction of trout as the real reason of the Yosemite decline. This argument clearly commits several fallacies and thus is unconvincing. General statement 过于详细，大可节省我有跟你一样的问题就是开篇难精简，而不精简的话后面就显得重复。不过这个习惯练练就改过来了，关键是要有意识

First of all, the two studies which the argument is based on were done at two terminal dates--1915 and 1992. The time span between the two dates are more than 70 years, the a period about which the author has not cited any evidence or statistics. 这句话从句用得不舒服是哦，但又没错 Thus without the detailed curve of the number of amphibians in Yosemite during the 77 years, which may help us know more clearly about the overall trend of the transition, we can reach little conclusion about what has happened to the number of amphibians in Yosemite. 缺乏例证，可以对70年间amphibian数量走势进行假想同意，遐想是argu很好的一种counterexample，但你自己都说了=P

Moreover, even if we take the decline of Yosemite as granted, the argument commits a hasty generalization.hasty generalization与其用在这里驳“减少”这一现象，不如放在后面驳整个causation的generalization It is merely based on two studies at a specific location----Yosemite National Park. With no matter how detailed data within only one specific location, it is impossible to reach any conclusion about the number of amphibians of the entire globe, for the detailed varieties, climates and geographical conditions that vary from one location to another prevent us from drawing any sweeping genralization as the author has done.

Furthermore, the author rules out a more probable explanation--the introduction of trout--as the reason of amphibians decline and alleges that the pollution is the real reason. Given the fact that tout are known to eat amphibian eggs, the author should cite concrete evidence but not reject such an explanation so curtly. Even the "trout reason" can be rejected, simply rejecting it cannot help us to reach the conclusion that pollution is the real reason since pollution is not the only alternative explanation.要给出具体的alternative explanation Thus this part of author's reasoning is ungrounded and unacceptable.

In conclusion, the argument is not well reasoned. To solidify it, the author should cite more convincing evidence which can indicates a strong correlation of the global decine of amphibian number and global pollution of water and
air.

------自改------
In this letter, the author's establishment of causation between the global air and water pollution and the worldwide decline of amphibian number is unconvincing for it's simply based on the two studies.

First of all, merely two studies in 1915 and 1992 cannot reveal the overall trend of the transition in Yosemite's amphibian number. What should be noticed is that the time span between the two studies is more than 70 years, during which not any data is provided by the author. In fact, the number of amphibians in Yosemite can be highly fluctuant over time. It is possible that the number in these two years were by chance at a crest and a trough respectively. Thus, even whether the number of amphibians in Yosemite has really been decreasing is still debatable. 有一个问题应该提到：Y Park在全世界不具代表性

这里到底需不需要一个moreover?跟下段重复Even if we take the decline in Yosemite as granted, the author's way to explain such a decline as a result of pollution is unacceptable. First, given the fact that trout are known to eat amphibian eggs, which can be a probable reason of the amphibian decrease, the author should not curtly deny it without any evidence or reasoning. In addition, simply ruling out the "trout factor" does not necessarily guarantee the pollution to be the only alternative 请教：alternative在此具体作和意？ explanation. The amphibians may also decrease due to the decrease of accessible food, the advent of other natural enemies than trout and even the natural extinction.

Furthermore, even if such a causation is valid in Yosemite, the author's extension of this causation to the entire globe is obviously too hasty. The detailed varieties, climates, geographical conditions, and of course, the seriousness of air and water pollution vary from one location to another. Actually, even the worldwide trend 他说worldwide trend就可以举没人的地区也下降的反例，又说比如T才可能有这种效果 of amphibian number cannot be generalized from such a provincial conclusion, not to mention the global cause-and-effect relationship.

In sum, the argument could alert people of a potential effect of pollution on the existence of some animals跑题：这里是说amphibian，正好还可以说pollution的话还应有别的animal受影响, the reasoning itself is however not persuasive.结尾可与每段呼应提出作者要证明他的观点可以改进的地方，使文章更完整

语句清楚易懂，看起来比较舒服。里边有些值得学习的关联词和让步句型，如果考试能自如用上，即使考虑不完全也会显得很有逻辑

说了要给你改的，来晚啦 :)

过去的过去，开始的开始
+U +U, lalala~

使用道具举报