[主题活动] [Big Fish]03月03日Argument150--By swolf54 [复制链接]

swolf54
UID：2421931

高级会员

Rank: 5 Rank: 5

声望: 29
寄托币: 1214
注册时间: 2007-11-3
精华: 0
帖子: 5

电梯直达

楼主

发表于 2010-3-3 21:02:55 |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."

感觉写得有些乱

In the letter, the arguer raises the point that the decline in the numbers of amphibians worldwide clearly indicates the global pollution of water and air. To confirm his assertion, he cites two studies of amphibians, which were conducted in 1915 and 1992, in Yose National Park apart. Furthermore, he also figures out that because the decline of amphibians worldwide is not due to trout, thus the pollution should be responsible to the decline of amphibians. However convincible as it stands, due to several vital fallacies made by the arguer, I remain skeptical about the conclusion.
At first, the arguer fails to assume that the total number and species diversity do declined during the past years. According to the letter, the report number of amphibians in 1992 is "observed" by the researchers. Trickily, the "observed" report lacks reliability to convince us to believe that the real number of amphibians do clines. It is entirely possible that, due to others factors such as weather and environmental change, amphibians moved to other areas where are not available to the researchers. Thus, without demonstrate the reliability of the report in 1992, I refuse to accept any conclusion drawn by the arguer.
Secondly, even if I concede that the total number of amphibians does declines in Yosemite National Park, it is still unwarranted to conceive that this is caused by pollution. In fact, the arguer suffers from "either-or" reasoning here. Based on the inference that the worldwide decline of amphibian does not own to trout, he unfairly concludes that it is due to the pollution. Nevertheless, the arguer overlooks the possibility that the decreasing of amphibians is caused by natural selection, climate change or other possible factors. Having not excludes other possible factors; the argument appears to be unconvincing for a second time.
At last, even if I admit that Yosemite National Park's total number and species diversity do damaged by pollution, I still doubt that the worldwide trend would caused by the same reason. Put another away, the arguer fails to assume that the specific tendency of Yosemite National Park applies to anywhere across the world. Without enough evidence about the worldwide condition, the arguer cannot hastily reach conclusion.
In conclusion, as to the several mistakes in this argument, the author fails to make a sound logic to support his statement. In order to convince me, he needs to provide detail information about the studies and conditions in Yosemite National Park. Besides, it is also recommended that he should do more investigation about amphibians all over the world.

已有 1 人评分	声望	收起理由
topran	+ 1	热泪盈眶的好文

总评分: 声望 + 1 查看全部投币

取次花丛懒回顾，半缘修道GRE

回应
0

使用道具举报

topran
UID：2310216

高级会员

Rank: 5 Rank: 5

声望: 7
寄托币: 688
注册时间: 2007-3-7
精华: 0
帖子: 18

沙发

发表于 2010-3-10 01:47:24 |只看该作者

1# swolf54

[Big Fish]03月03日Argument150--By swolf54

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."

感觉写得有些乱 呵呵你的感觉说不定不准呢我来感觉感觉
========================================================================================================
我用这种颜色标注我觉得应该再斟酌下的语句
我用这种颜色标注我觉得一定有错的语句
我用这种颜色标注我觉得我好喜欢的语句
我用这种颜色标注我觉得可以再多说点的地方
===============================================================

In the letter, the arguer raises the point that the decline in the numbers of amphibians worldwide clearly indicates the global pollution of water and air. To confirm his assertion, he cites two studies of amphibians, which were conducted in 1915 and 1992, in Yose National Park apart. Furthermore, he also figures out that because the decline of amphibians worldwide is not due to trout, thus the pollution should be responsible to the decline of amphibians. However convincible as it stands, due to several vital fallacies made by the arguer, I remain skeptical about the conclusion.

At first, the arguer fails to assume that the total number and species diversity do declined during the past years. According to the letter, the report number of amphibians in 1992 is "observed" by the researchers. Trickily, the "observed" report lacks reliability to convince us to believe that the real number of amphibians do clines.（还是你就想用“渐变”这个意思~） It is entirely possible that, due to others factors such as weather and environmental change, amphibians moved to other areas where are not available to the researchers. Thus, without demonstrate the reliability of the report in 1992, I refuse to accept any conclusion drawn by the arguer.

Secondly, even if I concede that the total number of amphibians does declines in Yosemite National Park, it is still unwarranted to conceive that this is caused by pollution. In fact, the arguer suffers from "either-or" reasoning here. Based on the inference that the worldwide decline of amphibian does not own to trout, he unfairly concludes that it is due to the pollution. Nevertheless, the arguer overlooks the possibility that the decreasing of amphibians is caused by natural selection, climate change or other possible factors. Having not excludes other possible factors; the argument appears to be unconvincing for a second time.

At last, even if I admit that Yosemite National Park's total number and species diversity do damaged by pollution, I still doubt that the worldwide trend would caused by the same reason. Put another away, the arguer fails to assume that the specific tendency of Yosemite National Park applies to anywhere across the world. Without enough evidence about the worldwide condition, the arguer cannot hastily reach conclusion.
In conclusion, as to the several mistakes in this argument, the author fails to make a sound logic to support his statement. In order to convince me, he needs to provide detail information about the studies and conditions in Yosemite National Park. Besides, it is also recommended that he should do more investigation about amphibians all over the world.

惊！
呆！
掉！

但是还能写更好，我觉得驳的不够犀利，没有之前的那几篇看的爽

使用道具举报