argument150,求拍,先感谢了

ieyangj08UID: 2743219

Argument 150 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."

我的思路
1 仅用一个公园内两栖动物的减少不能说明全球两栖动物的减少。其他地区可能增加。公园两栖动物的品种有限。
2 全球两栖动物数量减少不能说明全球水和大气的污染。过渡捕捞、气候变暖。
3 公园内两栖动物的减少可能由于其他原因。饲养方式、当地气候变化。

Citing the two studies results of amphibians in Yosemite National Park, the author comes to the conclusion that the descent in the numbers of world’s amphibians indicates global water and air are polluted. However, this argument is based on a series of unproven assumptions, which render it unconvincing as it stands.

One such assumption is that the world’s amphibians are declining. Even though the survey data in a certain park shows a downward trend, the author ignores the number of amphibians in other places of the world. It is totally possible that those numbers show an upward trend, and the gross number of the amphibians in the world is actually increasing. Unless the author could provide exact data to demonstrate the amphibians in other places are also gradually disappearing, his assumption is dubious.

The author’s claim that the decline in global amphibians indicates the world’s water and air are polluted is open to doubt. On the one hand, over hunting might be blamed for these declines, which greatly undermined the ecological balance. On the other hand, the augment in world’s population number might influence the living circumstance of amphibians, thus reduce their numbers by degrees. In short, without providing solid evidences that other reasons are all irrational, the author’s proposal is unpersuasive.

Finally, the decrease in quantity of amphibians in Yosemite National Park might be due to other explanations. For example, trout really eat overdue amphibians’ eggs, and amphibians can’t reproduce regularly. Or perhaps, the park has adopted new rearing methods recent years, and unfortunately they are inappropriate with the park environment, therefore the number of amphibians is dropping. If either of the cases is true, the global amphibians’ decline couldn’t indicate the global air and water pollution.

All in all, this argument relies on certain unwarranted assumptions and therefore specious at best. To convince readers to accept his/her conclusion that reduction of global amphibians indicates the world’s air and water pollution, the author should provide information on trend of amphibians
numbers in other places of the world, and other causes that might affect amphibians in a global scale or within the park.

nerdUID: 2760293

题目的study不是说amphibians的数量下降时由于the introduction of trout into the park's waters吗，那跟第一句的水和空气的污染完全没有关系啊~ 我觉得这个才是这篇argument的关键...

第二段第一句 One such assumption is that the world’s amphibians are declining. 我觉得这句不是假设...是事实

个人意见~ 有不对的请指出~

ieyangj08UID: 2743219

非常感谢楼上TX的热心回复和帮助，赞一下

偶又认真思考了一下，觉得首句给出的全球两栖动物减少是由公园的两次调查结构推出的，因为没有明确的证据。

呃，这里的确不好说，期待更多TX的帮助 2# nerd

nerdUID: 2760293

题目说"Two studies of amphibians in Yosemite National Park in California confirm my conclusion."
这句话看应该是先有的第一句话，然后后来的study只是证实了一下第一句话，当然了，作者的study并不足以证明。。
嗯 我也晕了 第一句话了 呵呵

欧羊羊与欧狼狼UID: 2673473

搞不清作者的 conclusion到底是什么了 引用的两个study 一个是说a减少了 另外一个说T增多了 按正常的推断作者应该是想说Y地应T的增多导致a的减少
但是作者又说不足以说明全国的下降由于T的增多而是污染
这不就反驳了刚刚的结论了吗 和自己说的相矛盾
难道第一句话才是他的论点 那么我又该如何证明呢？？？、
头晕得很啊