A 45欢迎拍之~I都写六篇了才第一次写A，汗。。。

tunicateUID: 2722773

欢迎拍之~懒得看全文就评述下提纲也行嘛~~
附链接回拍：>

45The following appeared as an editorial in a wildlife journal.

"Arctic deer live on islands in Canada's arctic region. They search for food by moving over ice from island to island during the course of a year. Their habitat is limited to areas warm enough to sustain the plants on which they feed, and cold enough, at least some of the year, for the ice to cover the sea separating the islands, allowing the deer to travel over it. Unfortunately, according to reports from local hunters, the deer populations are declining. Since these reports coincide with recent global warming trends that have caused the sea ice to melt, we can conclude that the decline in arctic deer populations is the result of deer being unable to follow their age-old migration patterns across the frozen sea."


提纲：1.Evidence reliability

=>Hunter's report != really decline


2.Relation: Global warming
     !-> locally warming
     !-> The reason for the decrease
     !-> deer being unable to follow their age-old migration patterns


By stating that the melting down of the sea ice caused by the global warming is the reason for the decline in arctic deer, for they cannot follow their old migration patterns, they author lists many evidences in order to support it, which include the reports from the hunters. However, the assumption and the evidences alone cannot make up a logical argument, in which the arguer fails to include a great many of other factors that may also influence the active pattern of the arctic deer. All in all, the argument suffers from 4 logical flaws at least.


First of all, the evidence itself that they author intends to support the argument is dubious. Is what the hunters said really count? The hunters may experience difficulties in finding and hunting deer, but can it lead directly to the conclusion that there's a decline in the deer's grosses? In fact the answer is not that true. For the hardship in observing deer may be caused by numerous other factors such as the increased canniness of the deer groups, the changed habitant of deer or the alternation of their life pattern.

Even if what the hunters observed is reliable, the conclusion is still hard to be drawn upon, for there're great number of fallacious relation and incomplete thought in the statement. First, admittedly there's a general tendency in the world environment of warming up, there's no evidence that it occurs in every region globally including Canada's arctic region. Actually, according to a statistics of UN, the global warming has so long caused a temperature decrease in various parts of the world. And Canada's arctic region may just be one of them. Further more, even the mentioned region really experiences a warming-up, it's not safe to arrive at the author's conclusion, for his/her recommendation depends on the assumption that no factor other than the rise of the temperature caused the decrease in the deer populations, which is certainly wrong. A myriad of other reasons may count for its population decrease, among which are the over-hunting, the unlimited expansion of human inhabitants and the decline in the grasslands as well as other their food resources. Notably I'd like to emphasize the over-hunting, which counts for the decline of many other species. In addition, even it is the warming-up process other than these factors that is responsible for the population decrease, the arguer's conclusion is yet suspicious. The increase in temperature caused the sea ice to melt indeed, but can't the deer find another path to go? Will they follow the old migration patterns that leading to death? Besides, as we know, some mosses that the deer depend for food is sensitive to climate change. It is as well that a lack of food forces the deer to death.

To sum up, as analyzed above, the author's argument is a poor-related one, for he/she fails to substantiate his claim by convincing evidences and misses many probable other factors. On the evidence side, he/she should cover other records other than hunters' to certify the trend of decrease and a clear temperature record locally should as well be included. One the logic side, without ruling out other factors, the author's conclusion can never be a cogent one. So he/she should realize the complexity of such issue and take all possible factors into concern. Only in this way can he conclude a well-organized and logical accepted argument.

bzr2915UID: 2612029

45The following appeared as an editorial in a wildlife journal.

"Arctic deer live on islands in Canada's arctic region. They search for food by moving over ice from island to island during the course of a year. Their habitat is limited to areas warm enough to sustain the plants on which they feed, and cold enough, at least some of the year, for the ice to cover the sea separating the islands, allowing the deer to travel over it. <Unfortunately, according to reports from local hunters, the deer populations are declining>.<Since these reports coincide with recent global warming trends that have caused the sea ice to melt>, we can conclude that the decline in arctic deer populations is the result of deer being unable to follow their age-old migration patterns across the frozen sea."


提纲：1.Evidence reliability

=>Hunter's report != really decline


2.Relation: Global warming
     !-> locally warming
     !-> The reason for the decrease
     !-> deer being unable to follow their age-old migration patterns


By stating that the melting down of the sea ice caused by the global warming is the reason for the decline in arctic deer, for they cannot follow their old migration patterns, they author lists many evidences in order to support it, which include the reports from the hunters. However, the assumption and the evidences alone cannot make up a logical argument, in which the arguer fails to include a great many of other factors that may also influence the active pattern of the arctic deer. All in all, the argument suffers from 4 logical flaws at least.


First of all, the evidence itself that they author intends to support the argument is dubious. Is what the hunters said really count? The hunters may experience difficulties in finding and hunting deer, but can it lead directly to the conclusion that there's a decline in the deer's grosses? In fact the answer is not that true. For the hardship in observing deer may be caused by numerous other factors such as the increased canniness of the deer groups, the changed habitant of deer or the alternation of their life pattern.

Even if what the hunters observed is reliable, the conclusion is still hard to be drawn upon, for there're great number of fallacious relation and incomplete thought in the statement. First, admittedly there's a general tendency in the world environment of warming up, there's no evidence that it occurs in every region globally including Canada's arctic region. Actually, according to a statistics of UN, the global warming has so long caused a temperature decrease in various parts of the world. And Canada's arctic region may just be one of them. Further more, even the mentioned region really experiences a warming-up, it's not safe to arrive at the author's conclusion, for his/her recommendation depends on the assumption that no factor other than the rise of the temperature caused the decrease in the deer populations, which is certainly wrong. A myriad of other reasons may count for its population decrease, among which are the over-hunting, the unlimited expansion of human inhabitants and the decline in the grasslands as well as other their food resources. Notably I'd like to emphasize the over-hunting, which counts for the decline of many other species. In addition, even it is the warming-up process other than these factors that is responsible for the population decrease, the arguer's conclusion is yet suspicious. The increase in temperature caused the sea ice to melt indeed, but can't the deer find another path to go? Will they follow the old migration patterns that leading to death? Besides, as we know, some mosses that the deer depend for food is sensitive to climate change. It is as well that a lack of food forces the deer to death.

To sum up, as analyzed above, the author's argument is a poor-related one, for he/she fails to substantiate his claim by convincing evidences and misses many probable other factors. On the evidence side, he/she should cover other records other than hunters' to certify the trend of decrease and a clear temperature record locally should as well be included. One the logic side, without ruling out other factors, the author's conclusion can never be a cogent one. So he/she should realize the complexity of such issue and take all possible factors into concern. Only in this way can he conclude a well-organized and logical accepted argument.

看了一会儿除了一些表达还要商榷 对逻辑我没什么话说~（--~ 这篇A我要拖到下个星期写了。。）