argument150 限时失败~~泪奔~

ustcroadUID：2374537

题目：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."
字数：390          用时：0:30:00          日期：2008-2-28

In this argument, the author claims that the global pollution of water and air is the reason

for the decline in the numbers of amphibians worldwide. The author cites the results of two

studies, and exclude another possible reason to ensure us of its rationality. However, a

close scrutiny of the supporting evidences reveals that this argument suffers from several

flaws, which render it unpersuasive.

In the first place, the argument is based on the assumption that the numbers of amphibians

are declining In the park. However, the author fails to provide any persuasive evidence.

Though the author cites the results of two studies of amphibians in Yosemite National Park

in California, the data of the two studies cannot serve to substantiate his/her assumption.

The author does not provide us with any information about the process of the survey. So we

cannot make it sure that whether the situation observed by the survey conductor can reflect

the true situation of the park. It is quite possible that some of the amphibians in the park

has changed their habitats, so the observers have not find them in 1922. Or perhaps the two

study had used different method, so it is meaningless to compare the result of them. Any of

these scenarios, if true, may serves to undermine the assumption.

In the second place, the argument is based on the assumption that the numbers of amphibians

are declining world widely. However, the author fails to provide us with any information to

prove it, such as statistic results of worldwide surveys or worldwide phenomenon which can

reflect the trend. Even assuming that amphibians are declining in the park, the situation in a

park cannot represent the situation worldwide. It is quite possible that the decline only

happens in Yosemite National Park, and the numbers of amphibians in other places have note

declined or even increased. If the author cannot exclude this possibility, he/she cannot make

us to believe that the numbers of amphibians is declining world widely.

In the third place, by exclude the possibility that the decline of the amphibians is caused

by the introduction of trout, the author implies that there is no other possibilities.

However, there is no evidence to support this assertion. It is quite possible that though

the introduction of amphibians is not the reason, the declining of the numbers of amphibians

is caused by other reasons, rather than pollution of water and air. For example, perhaps it

is the excessive hunting that has caused the decline. Or perhaps the rising global

temperature should be blame. If the author cannot exclude these and other possibilities,

he/she cannot persuasive us that the pollution is the reason.

In sum, the argument suffers from several flaws which render it logically unpersuasive as it

stands. To strengthen the argument, further investigation and analysis should are needed. If

so, it will be more thorough and adequate.

经自己修改。

[ 本帖最后由 ustcroad 于 2008-2-28 14:46 编辑 ]

iamziningUID：2381079

俺昨写了篇issue 45min只有三百来字 郁闷:mad

zephyrqqUID：2260290

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."
字数：390          用时：0:30:00          日期：2008-2-28

In this argument, the author claims that the global pollution of water and air is the reason for the decline in the numbers of amphibians worldwide.【个人觉得这个有点片面“The decline in the numbers of amphibians worldwide clearly indicates the global pollution of water and air." 应该是说两栖动物减少是全球污染的一个反映和结果，就是说把作者的另一层意思，两栖动物减少可以反映全球污染给丢了】 The author cites the results of two studies, and exclude another possible reasons to ensure us of its rationality. However, a close scrutiny of the supporting evidences reveals that this argument suffers from several flaws, which render it unpersuasive.

In the first place, the argument is based on the assumption that the numbers of amphibians are declining In the park. However, the author fails to provide any persuasive evidence. Though the author cites the results of two studies of amphibians in Yosemite National Park in California, the data of the two studies cannot serve to substantiate his/her assumption. The author does not provide us with any information about the process of the survey. So we cannot make it sure that whether the situation observed by the survey conductors can reflect the true situation of the park. It is quite possible that some of the amphibians in the park has changed their habitats, so the observers have not find them in 1922. Or perhaps the two study had used different method, so it is meaningless to compare the result of them. Any of these scenarios, if true, may serves to undermine the assumption.【两个假设注意了细节支持，很好】

In the second place, the argument is based on the assumption that the numbers of amphibians are declining world widely. However, the author fails to provide us with any information to prove it, such as statistic results of worldwide surveys or worldwide phenomenon 【可以用复数phenomena】which can reflect the trend. Even assuming that amphibians are declining in the park, the situation in a park cannot represent the situation worldwide. It is quite possible that the decline only happens in Yosemite National Park, and the numbers of amphibians in other places have note 【not】declined or even increased. If the author cannot exclude this possibility, he/she cannot make us to believe that the numbers of amphibians is declining world widely.

In the third place, by exclude 【excluding】the possibility that the decline of the amphibians is caused by the introduction of trout, the author implies that there is no other possibilities. However, there is no evidence to support this assertion. It is quite possible that though the introduction of amphibians 【trout】is not the reason, the declining of the numbers of amphibians is caused by other reasons, rather than pollution of water and air. For example, perhaps it is the excessive hunting 【细节】that has caused the decline. Or perhaps the rising global temperature 【细节】should be blamed. If the author cannot exclude these and other possibilities, he/she cannot persuasive us that the pollution is the reason.

In sum, the argument suffers from several flaws which render it logically unpersuasive as it stands. To strengthen the argument, further investigation and analysis should are needed. If so, it will be more thorough and adequate.

提纲是：
1. 公园两栖动物减少值得怀疑 2. 全球两栖动物减少值得怀疑 3. 不应该排除其它可能

作者的行文很有章法，每一个论证段落都注意了语言的变化和论证的严密，特别是提出假设细节，而不是泛泛而论。这些是值得学习的额地方。

但是，有几点值得琢磨：
1.各段之间感觉没有联系起来，没有形成一个整体。
2.题目还有一个错误就是，用斑斑的话“从一个典型样本推广到所有个性都是如此”，公园和全球的这层个别和广泛之间的关系似乎你没有顾及。不是说，每个错误都要说到，也不是说论据真实与否不能怀疑，只是个人觉得，论证推理上的逻辑问题比质疑论据本身的真实可靠更符合ETS的希望。而你用了很大力气——两个段落来攻击真实与否，对这个公园和世界范围视为同一的问题置之不理，个人感觉你有一点避重就轻的感觉。
3.从文章看你，是在讨论两栖动物是不是少了，减少的原因是不是环境污染。但是，我认为题目的重点不是分析全球两栖动物为什么减少了，他的写作意图是告诉读者，”同志们，大家注意啦~全球两栖动物减少这一事实，说明全球水和空气被污染了！”感觉这个是他的重点，呵呵，我觉得哈。

这是我的想法和你交流~加油，祝你成功~

[ 本帖最后由 zephyrqq 于 2008-2-28 17:14 编辑 ]

ustcroadUID：2374537

太感谢楼上的朋友了，那么认真的帮我改，那么中肯的意见，太感动了！
我觉得你说的很对，我对题目的理解是有偏差的，攻击的观点应该改成你所建议的那样。
另外，我觉得我第三段段中有攻击从‘一个典型样本推广到所有个性都是如此’这个错误，只不过我将它作为证据不充分来攻击了（Even assuming that amphibians are declining in the park, the situation in a park cannot represent the situation worldwide. It is quite possible that the decline only happens in Yosemite National Park, and the numbers of amphibians in other places have note 【not】declined or even increased.）是不是这样攻击不如将这个错误单独拎出来好？

hacker198679UID：2336889

楼主第二段感觉废话比较多。建议看看官方范文，很有用的！

ustcroadUID：2374537

对，我也觉得我第二段前面半段都是废话，我回去改一改。
谢谢你的指正和建议~~~欢迎继续交流~~

l5220539UID：2365811

Yosemite National Park in California把这个在第一段第一次出现的时候做个简写说明，简单的操作可以在 Yosemite National Park in California 后面打个括号（YNPC），以后就都用简称，可以省一点时间