[习作点评] A 150【MrTom】 [复制链接]

luohuirose
UID: 2995407

初级会员

Rank: 3 Rank: 3

声望: 0
寄托币: 242
注册时间: 2011-1-20
精华: 0
帖子: 43

电梯直达

楼主

发表于 2011-2-2 16:55:12 |只看该作者 |倒序浏览

The editor(信是写给editor的，不是editor写的) claims that the global pollution of water and air could be reflected clearly from the decline in the numbers of amphibians worldwide. To support the argument, he provides two studies, one is about the decline of amphibian in Yosemite National Park, and another is the analysis of the real reason behind the Yosemite decline. But his conclusion is flawed in several aspects.

First of all, the editor fails to prove the correlation between the worldwide decline of amphibians and the pollution of water and air. And there just are too many parameters which could influence the decline. For instance, most kinds of amphibians require the habitat of half land half water, but the global warming which results in sinking the suitable habitats into water damaged their living conditions thus threatened their numbers. Another alternative explanation could be unusual global climate changes which are actually happening now. Without providing any detail information about the pollution of water and air and considering other parameters, the editor's conclusion is not cogent.
（· 划  处只需攻击漏洞，不需要自己提供论据——personal view
  · 表态度的词语用法准确）

Moreover, the validity of the two studies is doubtful because they didn't mention the conditions of the observation such as date or specific places. It is possible that the study in 1915 was done during summer while the later one during winter when most of the amphibians are hibernated. Or, the former one was done in a place in the park where both the numbers and the kinds of amphibians are high while the later one chose a place where few amphibians available. These could be explanations for the Yosemite decline and if that so, there would be no evidence to prove the numbers of amphibians are indeed decreased and the comparison between 1915 and 1992 is meaningless.
（strong!）

Finally, even if we accept the Yosemite decline. Since the factor of trout is, in fact, a special local case which of course can't be responsible for the global decline does not necessarily equal to that it has nothing to do with the Yosemite decline. According to the studies which mentioned in the magazine, it is true that they introduced trout into the water in Yosemite Park and trout are capable of eating amphibians' eggs(拼写错误). Thereby, the factor of trout more or less has to be part of the reasons. On the other side, the global case may has various reasons as I mentioned before. The false logic of the editor（author） is that he（or she） assumes that the Yosemite decline and the global case have the same reasons.

To sum up, if the editor wants to strengthen the conclusion, he would better pay attention to other factors which cause the global incline, carefully examine the details of the studies and make it clear that local environment dose not equal to global one.

总结：
对于文章的漏洞能清楚说明并进行论证，但第一、第二个分论点中加入作者自己的推测，个人认为可以对其进行压缩，而集中笔墨进行逻辑上的攻击。
语言方面，很多精辟的词语运用恰当，transitions也很清晰，语句变化较多。