- 最后登录
- 2013-6-19
- 在线时间
- 89 小时
- 寄托币
- 224
- 声望
- 8
- 注册时间
- 2009-11-7
- 阅读权限
- 20
- 帖子
- 1
- 精华
- 0
- 积分
- 191
- UID
- 2722773
 
- 声望
- 8
- 寄托币
- 224
- 注册时间
- 2009-11-7
- 精华
- 0
- 帖子
- 1
|
本帖最后由 tunicate 于 2010-2-9 14:40 编辑
A的部分
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: 446
In the letter distributed to the editor of environmental magazine, the author claim that it is because of the global pollution that cause the declining of the numbers of amphibians worldwide by giving statistics from Yosemite National Park during certain periods of time. The conclusion that it is water and air pollution instead of trout that make the numbers of amphibians decline is unsubstantially supported.
To begin with, the author takes the Yosemite National Park for example which is far from sufficient to support the conclusion since the decline in numbers of amphibians in Yosemite National Park might not stand for the world as a whole. And two studies only are【simply】 not enough to make conclusion in a wide range. Before it can be confirmed that Yosemite National Park is representative enough to show the total trend of the situation outside and provide a larger sample, drawing conclusion is quite fallacious.
Furthermore, the argument stated is weakened by the time the studies made, since situations might be different. Possibly, most amphibians had moved into another natural environment around Yosemite National Park because of limited living space with the growing number of creature due to people's civilization that affect the living environment of all the local animals.【论据和论点没有对上。应该在两者间加上“During this time gap, a lot of factors may contribute to the decline in amphibians number of the two lakes, such as…”】 The result of study that comes from observation by people is not reliable enough as during some seasons such as winter, most animals including amphibians prefer to hide themselves in a place not easy to discover. It will be more persuasive if the writer can give other people adequate evidence to show the reliability of the research.
Another problem with the argument stated is that it assumes that the effect of trout has on the number of amphibian can be equally applied to Yosemite National Park and the world at large. 【这一句逻辑和之后的论证不太一样吧。。。】However, this might not be the case, concerning a series of reasons. Maybe the living condition in Yosemite National Park is favorable to trout making it easy to breed and exert obvious effect on the amphibians by eating amphibian eggs. Perhaps, the fast growing in number of trout constrains the living space of amphibians and forces the amphibians to move out. Without discussing and ruling out these possibilities, it is not justifiable for the author to conclude that trout cannot cause the decline of trout.
In addition, the author assumes that the pollution and the introduction of trout are two alternatives mutually exclusive with no reasons given. None other causes, like change of the climate, preyed by other animals, are considered or discussed.
In order to make this argue substantial and compelling, the author need to give more evidence on the reasons of the decreasing of the amphibian on earth.【such as。。。结尾还需加强】
TOPIC: ARGUMENT7 - The following appeared in a letter to the editor of the Clearview newspaper.
"In the next mayoral election, residents of Clearview should vote for Ann Green, who is a member of the Good Earth Coalition, rather than for Frank Braun, a member of the Clearview town council, because the current members are not protecting our environment. For example, during the past year the number of factories in Clearview has doubled, air pollution levels have increased, and the local hospital has treated 25 percent more patients with respiratory illnesses. If we elect Ann Green, the environmental problems in Clearview will certainly be solved."
The author suggested the citizens in Clear view elect Ann Green, a member of the GEC(Good Earth Coalition) instead of Frank Braun, who is a member of CTC(Clear view town council) for the reason that the increased level of air pollution is due to the incompetence of the members of CTC. However, the reasons and evidence given might not be persuasive enough to support the conclusion given by the author.
To begin with, the increased number of factories might not necessarily be the main reason since the original number of factory is not given. It is possible that the total amount of factor is in Clear view is not large enough to cause obvious air pollution especially when these factories take effective efforts to purify the exhaust before emitting into the air. What's more, it is likely that there are alternate facts other than the factories increasing the air pollution level【作者是以air pollution证明原委员会做的不够,你这里并不能驳斥这一点】 such as the exhausts emitted by vehicles on the road, high level of carbon dioxide owing to the large population in that place, even the air pollution from the cities adjacent to Clear view would have something to do with the environmental deterioration.
What's more, the evidence of raised percentage of patients with respiratory illness among all the patients treated is not well grounded because the ratio of patients suffering respiratory illnesses could still be very low when compared with the number of all the patients treated in the hospital. If those patients suffered from diseases other than respiratory illness were cured during the time when the number of those with respiratory sickness remains unchanged, this percentage would also rise to a higher level. 【这点其实有点牵强】The author also failed to take into consideration the other possible inducement in close connection with the breakout of respiratory illness like the climate, interaction of virus among people, allergy and so on. During the time of transmission between seasons, it is quite easy for people to get cold and give rise to respiratory diseases with temperature frequently vibrating throughout each day. Virus might be taken from other cities by travelers from that place which has always been the main reason that causes of epidemic including respiratory illness. To strengthen the assuming, all these possible facts should be discussed.
Finally, whether the environmental problems can be solved properly by Ann Green is still uncertain since no evidence is given to show the possibility of this kind of result. The election of Ann Green could, on the contrary, make the problems even more serious.
The reasons from the author seem to be logical at first glance, but without further considering and discussing the aspects of the problem above, the conclusion hastily made is by no means justifiable.
【其实我觉得你没必要把攻击笔墨都给Not did enough,其他方面,比如说不一定是FB责任,或A爱护环境,不一定能做好其他实际问题等,要兼顾到
另外下次请附A提纲】
P.S
1、你的第九次作业呢?
2、我的第八和第九次作业貌似还没拍过,什么时候拍呢??
|
|