关于一篇范文的若干问题 by kulewy531【reborn from the ashes】

kulewy531UID: 2603031

Argument Topic 1
The country Myria, which charges fees for the use of national parks, reports little evidence of
environmental damage. this strongly suggests that for the country Illium, the best way to preserve
public lands is to charge people more money when they are using national parks and wilderness
areas for activities with heavy environmental impact. By collecting fees from those people who
overuse public lands, Illium will help preserve those lands for present and future generations.
Essay Response—Score 6
This argument is not cogent because it assumes that the stated correlation implies causation, which
is not necessarily the case. The argument asserts that because the country of Myria charges fees
for the use of its national parks, there is little evidence of environmental damage. But there are
several reasons why one cannot assume that the lack of evidence of environmental damage is a
result of the fact that individuals are charged to use these parks.
First, just because there is a lack of evidence does not preclude the fact that environmental damage
may in fact be occurring.(没有看懂这句话的because分句到哪儿为止) The individuals who are testing the area for evidence of damages may
not have the proper scientific instruments or educational training necessary to detect damage that
may be present. In fact, certain kinds of environmental damage may not be detectable in the short
term even using the most sophisticated scientific methods. Imbalance in ecosystems, for example,
may only become apparent over a long period of time.
Second, even if we concede that there is in fact negligible amounts of environmental damage, this
does not necessarily mean that by collecting money from individuals who are using the parks one
can use these funds to maintain the land for future generations（题目的逻辑应该直接就是collecting money——>little damage 作者应该直接把这个关系否定掉，似乎而不应该加入use these funds to maintain the land for future generations这个合理但不必然的中间结论）. An alternative explanation may be
that because the country charges a fee to use the national parks, people are less inclined to use the
parks. It then stands to reason that with fewer people in the parks, there will be less of a
detrimental impact on the environment. In addition, even if people are willing to pay the fee, the
funds collected may be insufficient to cover the costs of maintaining and preserving the parkland.
Finally, even if we accept that the situation in Myria is successful in that country, we cannot
assume that this same scenario will work in Illium. There are a myriad of variables that can
contribute to the success of this type of environmental maintenance and restoration program.
Pre-existing and uncontrollable environmental conditions such as the rate of erosion and the
overall climate may cause damage that cannot be rectified by monetary solutions。（这句和上句的关系有问题，上句是说钱不是导致环境没有被破坏的唯一原因，但是这句说得是钱不能解决某些环境问题，下句又说的是有其他原因可以保护环境，此处的逻辑似乎有点不通） In addition,
cultural norms regarding how one views his or her responsibility and role in terms of preserving
the environment may influence the intensity of environmental damage that may be sustained.
Thus, although the strategy of charging citizens of Myria for the use of its parks in order to collect
funds for any restoration that may be required may be successful in Myria, this reality alone does
not conclusively suggest that such a strategy would be effective in Illium or any other country.

AdelineShenUID: 2630498

Argument Topic 1
The country Myria, which charges fees for the use of national parks, reports little evidence of
environmental damage. this strongly suggests that for the country Illium, the best way to preserve
public lands is to charge people more money when they are using national parks and wilderness
areas for activities with heavy environmental impact. By collecting fees from those people who
overuse public lands, Illium will help preserve those lands for present and future generations.
Essay Response—Score 6
This argument is not cogent because it assumes that the stated correlation implies causation, which
is not necessarily the case. The argument asserts that because the country of Myria charges fees
for the use of its national parks, there is little evidence of environmental damage. But there are
several reasons why one cannot assume that the lack of evidence of environmental damage is a
result of the fact that individuals are charged to use these parks.
First, just because there is a lack of evidence does not preclude the fact that environmental damage
may in fact be occurring.这句是because分句作主语 The individuals who are testing the area for evidence of damages may
not have the proper scientific instruments or educational training necessary to detect damage that
may be present. In fact, certain kinds of environmental damage may not be detectable in the short
term even using the most sophisticated scientific methods. Imbalance in ecosystems, for example,
may only become apparent over a long period of time.
Second, even if we concede that there is in fact negligible amounts of environmental damage, this
does not necessarily mean that by collecting money from individuals who are using the parks one
can use these funds to maintain the land for future generations（题目的逻辑是collecting money——>little damage，也就是collecting miney→maintain the land for future generations，这两个是一个道理的，这段话就是说collecting money不一定就能达到little damage ）. An alternative explanation may be
that because the country charges a fee to use the national parks, people are less inclined to use the
parks. It then stands to reason that with fewer people in the parks, there will be less of a
detrimental impact on the environment（我不大明白这句话他想表达什么，怎么感觉反过来支持argu观点了）. In addition, even if people are willing to pay the fee, the
funds collected may be insufficient to cover the costs of maintaining and preserving the parkland.
Finally, even if we accept that the situation in Myria is successful in that country, we cannot
assume that this same scenario will work in Illium.（这段要论述的主题是：发生在Myria有用不代表发生在Illium有用，你对这段论证的点的理解似乎存在偏差） There are a myriad of variables that can
contribute to the success of this type of environmental maintenance and restoration program.
Pre-existing and uncontrollable environmental conditions such as the rate of erosion and the
overall climate may cause damage that cannot be rectified by monetary solutions。（这句话是说M和I的环境本底值不同，环境条件也不可控制，比如侵蚀速率和整个天气状况，所以即使向使用公园的人收钱在M是可行的，在I也可能是不可行的） In addition,
cultural norms regarding how one views his or her responsibility and role in terms of preserving
the environment may influence the intensity of environmental damage that may be sustained.
Thus, although the strategy of charging citizens of Myria for the use of its parks in order to collect
funds for any restoration that may be required may be successful in Myria, this reality alone does
not conclusively suggest that such a strategy would be effective in Illium or any other country.

AdelineShenUID: 2630498

argument逻辑链是：

1. evident证明M环境破坏很少 → 所以反驳evident不一定能证明M的环境没有破坏或很少破坏

2. M环境破坏很少是因为park向游人收钱→所以反驳即使M环境破坏很少也不一定是因为向人收钱的原因，钱不一定能使M环境破坏减少  其实这里我觉得这篇范文的论证存在问题了，TS的意思是即使M环境减少不一定是由收钱引起的，那论证过程应该说明可能是哪些他因引起了M的环境破坏比较小，而不是说钱不一定能引起M环境破坏小
3. M通过向游人收钱实现了little damage退出I也应该这么做→所以反驳即使M真的通过向有人收钱实现了little damage，这种措施在I也不一定能实现。

kulewy531UID: 2603031

3# AdelineShen
同意！
不知道是我们逻辑不对还是范文逻辑不对！