[a习作temp] 诚意求拍拍。。。新人第一篇ARGU。 [复制链接]

lovekobe11
UID: 2650016

新手上路

Rank: 1

声望: 0
寄托币: 51
注册时间: 2009-6-7
精华: 0
帖子: 1

电梯直达

楼主

发表于 2009-8-12 17:06:10 |只看该作者 |倒序浏览

TOPIC: ARGUMENT150 - 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."
WORDS: 408       TIME: 00:30:00    DATE: 2009/8/12 17:02:51

In this argument, the arguer advocates that the decline in the numbers of amphibians worldwide is due to the global pollution of water and air. To support the conclusion, the arguer illustrates the decline of specie from seven to four, and numbers of each pieces were greatly reduced during the period 1915-1992.  In addition, the arguer cites the other study to clarify that the trout is not the reason for the decline. However, a careful examination of this argument would reveal how groundless the conclusion is.

First of all, the argument is  based on a false anology. The argue simply assumes that the study of amphibians in Yosemite National Park in California reflect the global decline of amphibians,  but she does not provide any evidence that the decline in other places of the world is analogous to Yosemite.Meanwhile, the arguer does not convince me that why Yosemite is representive of the glabal decline of amphibians. Lacking these necessary information, the argument is probematic.

In the second place, even if the study of amphibians in Yosemite National Park in California has reflected the global decline in the numbers of amphibians, in claiming that the global pollution of water and air is the reason to the decline, but the arguer provides no evidence to substantiate this reason. Perhaps some new specie of amphibians appeared and vastly broken the old food chain, those old amphibians were defeated in the cruel competition. It is also entirely possible that global climate change lead to the decline of amphibians. For these reasons, the argument is unconvincing.

Last but not least, in my opinion, the second study should be a support that trout is the cause of the decline of amphibians, while the arguer simply negate it as unreal reason. The arguer don't give sound reason to negate the effect of the introduction of trout, as we all know, trout eat amphibian eggs,  so they will certainly affect the amount of amphibian in the same biosphere. The arguer's attitude to the trout seem to be unsubstantiated.
In conclusion, the conclusion looks little crediblity, because the evidence cited in the analysis does not lend strong support to what the arguer maintains. To strengthen the argument, the arguer would have to provide evidence that Yosemite is representive of the world in the aspect of decline of amphibians. To better evaluate the argument, I would need more information about trout is not the real cause for the decline.