[a习作temp] argument150 大家拍拍 [复制链接]

月光疾风
UID: 2314163

寄托新兵

Rank: 2

声望: 0
寄托币: 114
注册时间: 2007-3-15
精华: 0
帖子: 0

电梯直达

楼主

发表于 2007-4-4 12:24:25 |只看该作者 |倒序浏览

少写几句套话感觉字数就不够了，而且这篇写的时候感觉很难举出other explanations来

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: 332 TIME: 12:30:00 AM DATE: 4/4/2007

The author asserts that the decline in the numbers of amphibians worldwide indicates the global pollution of water and air. Through careful reflection, I found the assertion is not well supported.
First of all, it still deserves doubt about the statement that the number of amphibians decreased. The author doesn't give enough persuasive evidences to support this statement except the mere studies in California, since the decline in California doesn't mean the decline worldwide. It's very possible that the other areas are not the situation as the author statement, and the number of amphibian worldwide maybe not declines, but increases.
Then, turn to the studies the author cites. The author unfairly ascribes the decline in the number of amphibians in Yosemite National Park (YNP) in California to the pollution. However, this is just an unsubstantiated assumption the author makes without any evidences. An alternative explanation for the declines is that the increasing number of visitor to the park take effect on the living of amphibians or that the climate in California has changed to be unfit for the living of amphibians between the past decades. Moreover, the author still fails to persuasively rule out the possibility that the decline is blamed on the introduction of trout into the park's waters which are known to eat amphibian eggs. Perhaps the reason just lies in this explanation in YNP.
Even the decline in the numbers of amphibians worldwide is true, and the decline in YNP is actually duo to the pollution of water and air. But just based on this facts can't draw the conclusion about the global pollution of water and air. Perhaps the decline in other areas is due to the change of the climate and the situation they live. And also it's possible that some kinds of animals or plants the feed on has decreased so as to influence the living of amphibians. Without ruling out those possibilities, the assertion is just unconvincing.
In sum, the author's assertion suffers some significant flaws.