argument202 首篇限時之作 以及其他懇求

TEFouDAFUID: 2759255

2.22考试 今天才开始限时作文 鉴于实战的时候很有可能抽不到高频 故以随机派送题目的方式模考 而将高频准备挪于提纲准备 另外为了留给自己足够的时间（重要原因是自己效率不高 折减率需要考虑其中）没有上任何培训班【是不是很舍本逐末？】
首次模考的字数结果（issue 553 argument 400）以及刚刚卡点的状况 说明自己打字的速度和准度都不是太高（正因为如此issue酌情只展开了两段 argu 也是倉惶而作）
请各位高人在猛拍本人劣作的同时是否能结合上述境况给我指明一条道路 以免AW一致收敛到杯具
感激不尽

附：首篇限時ISSUE https://bbs.gter.net/forum.php?mod=viewthread&tid=1057402&extra=

TOPIC: ARGUMENT202 - Humans arrived in the Kaliko Islands about 7,000 years ago, and within 3,000 years most of the large mammal species that had lived in the forests of the Kaliko Islands had become extinct. Yet humans cannot have been a factor in the species' extinctions, because there is no evidence that the humans had any significant contact with the mammals. Further, archaeologists have discovered numerous sites where the bones of fish had been discarded, but they found no such areas containing the bones of large mammals, so the humans cannot have hunted the mammals. Therefore, some climate change or other environmental factor must have caused the species' extinctions.

WORDS: 400
TIME: 0:30:00
DATE:

In the argument, the author asserts that rather than human factors, climate change or other environmental factor should be responsible for the extinction of the large mammals. The author concludes by the archaeological findings that human were just hunting fish and were not in significant contact with these large mammals. While seemingly convincing at first glance, the argument cannot bear any close scrutiny, for the author has committed many logical fallacies. These fallacies will be discussed respectively.

First, the author unfairly assumes that human has never hunted for large mammals for lacking the evidence of discarding bones. The prerequisite is that human being then has taken the same measure to what they have hunted, including fish and mammals. However, there is no evidence that hunted mammals are treated as fish. Moreover, no site found for discarding bones of mammals does not equate there is no such one in existence. Without any strong support, the author can hardly reach to his point.

Second, the assumptions that only by direct contact large mammals become extinct is also questionable. Even if the human then just hunt for fish, it is entirely possible that the decrease in the number of fish brings about the downside of large mammals. Common sense tells us all the species living on the earth are the element of an intricate matrix, linking by predator-prey relationship. Maybe many mammals feed on the fish, so the hunt of fish will set into motion the extinction of such large mammals even there is no significant contact between human and the large mammals.

Thirdly, the author fails to rule out other alternatives that amount to the extinction of the large mammals. Even if human are irresponsible for this, it is groundless to allege that it is the climate change or other environmental factor that bring about the outcome. There is no evidence lending support to such alternatives, and other possibilities are not taken into accounts. For example, many of the plants has suffered the modification in gene, thus are poisonous for the large mammals. Without further research, the author cannot take it for granted that the main reason for the extinction of large mammals is climate change and other environmental factors.

In sum, the author fails to lend a potent line of reasoning. To strengthen the argument, the author should exclude other possibilities discussed above and provide other evidence to bolster his claim.

TEFouDAFUID: 2759255

不知道在这个论坛上像我这样平庸之辈是不是就不会被眷顾

我没有其他的奢望 只是希望各位达仁能够稍稍指点一下 以收醍醐灌顶之效
毕竟初值不同 最终收敛的结果会有可能不同 虽然仍会处在悲剧的区间内

TEFouDAFUID: 2759255

為什麼仍舊這麼悲摧呢