[a习作temp] Argument150 [复制链接]

snailkevin
UID: 2456176

寄托新兵

Rank: 2

声望: 0
寄托币: 222
注册时间: 2008-2-8
精华: 0
帖子: 0

电梯直达

楼主

发表于 2009-2-19 21:42:57 |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: 329
TIME: 01:05:34
DATE: 2009-2-17 下午 11:08:05

This argument seems to be sound; however, it is not reasonable when it is scrutinized.

Firstly, the observed data could not demonstrate both species and the numbers in Yosemite National Park (YNK) drastically reduced. This phenomenon may have alternative explanations. For the instance, the observers may work not frequently as ones in 1910s. For that matter, the observed data would not as accurate as a fact. Furthermore, the amphibians may change their habit that they seem much more reclusive than several decades ago. For this case, it is could not conclude that the amphibians are decreasing. Therefore, the author fails to prove that the numbers and species of amphibians are reducing.

Secondly, even if we admit that amphibians in YNP, the author also fails to link the relationship between pollution and the amphibians number in YNP. Without showing us the adequate evidences to indicate trout are not the reason to cause the decreasing number, the author also implies the pollution contributes to this too hastily. Other reasons such as human activities or insufficient implement of protecting policy may also lead to the decrease in YNP. Without showing sufficient evidences, we can not agree that the decreased amphibians in YNP have something to do with the pollution.

Finally, even we assume these consumptions are true, the author also incorrectly extend the individual to the whole poll. The author deduces the amphibians reduced globally by showing the YNP case without considering the differences. We can assume that the amphibians globally increased on the contrary. Without specific data, we can not conclude the totally number of amphibians reduced.

To sum up, it is not strongly authentic for this conclusion in this argument. Lack of evidences to demonstrate that amphibians decreased globally and that the pollution caused the reduced numbers in YNP, the author also fails to deduce the YNP case to the overall pool. To bolster this argument, the author must provide us more accurate and specific evidences and make a rigorous reasoning.