求拍-argument 69

xiao-hu-tu-shenUID: 2681670

TOPIC:
ARGUMENT69   Yellow-legged frogs were once common in high-altitude lakes in the Sierra Nevada mountains, but they have become increasingly rare. Trout feed on tadpoles and young frogs. Few lakes in the Sierra Nevada had any trout in them until a hundred years ago. At that time, many lakes were stocked with trout for recreational fishing, and now trout are common in virtually all bodies of water in the Sierra Nevada. Researchers removed the trout from one lake, and the frog population soon quadrupled. Since frogs are capable of moving several miles over land, removing trout from just a few lakes is clearly the way to restore the frog population to its former levels.

The argument generally concludes that to restore the frog population to its former level, removing trout from just a few lakes is an effective way. To support this claim, the arguer points out that yellow-legged frogs were increasingly rare because of the common of trout in virtually all bodies of water in the Sierra Nevada for trout feed on tadpoles and young frogs. The author also reasons with a research in which removing the trout from one leads to the quadruple of the frog population. At first glance, the argument may have some merits, however, after a more careful look at it, I find out three logic faults.

Firstly, the arguer fails to establish the casual relationship between the fact that the frogs become increasingly rare and the claim that the trout are common in bodies of water in the Sierra Nevada. The argument is unacceptable unless there is compelling evidence to support the connection between these two events. Perhaps, for example, the water body environmental change, the undue kill of human beings or other creatures cause the frog population to decrease. So it is not convincing to conclude that it is the latter that causes the former.

Secondly, since there is no detailed information about the research, we could not blindly regard it as warranted and trustful. I wonder how the researcher get the exact number of frogs in this area to point out that the frog population soon quadruples. If the researcher gets that number from statistical method and they do not sample a sufficient number of frogs and do so randomly across the entire spectrum, the conclusion is just a valid one.

Finally, even though it is the increasing number of trout that causes the frog population to fall, I still do not think the number of frogs would return to its former levels by removing trout from a few lakes. First, the remove of trout may cause other problems for there may be other creatures that feed on it to expire thus causing the loss of balance of the environment which will lead to more serious problems. Secondly, only removing trout from a few lakes are not enough to support the former level of frog population though frogs can travel long to these lakes.

In sum, based on unwarranted research and analysis, the speaker concludes that by removing trout from a few lakes, the number of frogs can return to its former states. To better evaluate the argument, we should do more scientific research to find out the real reason of the decrease of frog population, and think carefully before take actual measures so that there will be no other harms.

stanzyUID: 2629386

Few lakes in the Sierra Nevada had any trout in them until a hundred years ago. At that time, many lakes were stocked with trout for recreational fishing, and now trout are common in virtually all bodies of water in the Sierra Nevada. 只是时间上的先后。钓鳟鱼并不是导致鳟鱼数量上升的原因。
Researchers removed the trout from one lake, and the frog population soon quadrupled. 这个也没有因果关系。
Since frogs are capable of moving several miles over land, removing trout from just a few lakes is clearly the way to restore the frog population to its former levels.这个不仅没有因果关系，而且还犯了过于简单化的毛病。把提高frog数量问题简单为把鳟鱼挪走。
怎么说呢，如果我写这篇文章，肯定超时了。我花了很长时间才看明白鳟鱼和青蛙的数量有什么关系。其实这篇文章就是说要把鳟鱼移走以增加青蛙的数量，因为鳟鱼吃青蛙的卵和蝌蚪。但中间的部分说休闲渔业兴起鳟鱼数量就多起来显然是不对的。唉，这个论据和提高frog数量问题差太远了，这也是我觉得这篇文章难下笔的原因。
我觉得楼主似乎都是在抨击文章中的数据错误？我觉得......如果不是明确servey或者study，还是找主要错误攻击，比如false delimma或者over simplification。然后把数据放在最后攻击。因为Argument的主要目的，还是论证例子和结论之间的逻辑关系。

xiao-hu-tu-shenUID: 2681670

多谢恢复，我写的时候就有点晕，总觉得早不出典型的错误，觉得servey或study更好写，就这样做了，多谢提醒，以后肯定注意。

darkrenUID: 2510587

Few lakes in the Sierra Nevada had any trout in them until a hundred years ago. At that time, many lakes were stocked with trout for recreational fishing, and now trout are common in virtually all bod ...
stanzy 发表于 2009-9-13 11:26

比较赞同2楼的看法，总感觉一般来说和statistic较劲不一定好展开。感觉楼主在第二个反驳段针对Researchers removed the trout from one lake, and the frog population soon quadrupled.下笔，说他并没提供evidence prove removing the trout directly caused the quadrupled of frog population,这样可能相对好展开点。
我看这个题目也是雾水很多，看了两遍题目在搞懂trout和frog的关系…………

xiao-hu-tu-shenUID: 2681670

不过 要是第二个反驳段，”针对Researchers removed the trout from one lake, and the frog population soon quadrupled.下笔，说他并没提供evidence prove removing the trout directly caused the quadrupled of frog population“ ， 是不是就与第一个反驳段观点有重叠了呢？

darkrenUID: 2510587

不过 要是第二个反驳段，”针对Researchers removed the trout from one lake, and the frog population soon quadrupled.下笔，说他并没提供evidence prove removing the trout directly caused the quadrupled of  ...
xiao-hu-tu-shen 发表于 2009-9-14 19:31

着实，这是我的失误，实在抱歉 >_< ..
其实，对于 这篇我只找到两个主要反驳点， 一个就是 trout 与 frog的数量没有明确的关系； 第二就是移走tout可能会产生很多potetial problems， such as ecosysem destruction 等等。其他的小反驳点一般也就是围绕trout和frog的数量关系，因此我个人可能就针对以上两个地方使劲展开。主要是我对于挑research的刺不是很行……
个人愚见，惭愧惭愧。