argument 150 求拍啊求拍~~

younghuman123UID: 2767423

The editor asserts that the decline of amphibians worldwide clearly indicates the worldwide water and air pollution. To verify his assertion the editor gives out two study results which definitely demonstrates the drastic decline of species and numbers of amphibians in Yosemite National Park in California and also refutes the explanation that the declination occurs from the introduction of trout through pointing out its deficiency in explaining the worldwide decline. But the whole process of validation is logically flawed in several aspects.


Firstly, the decline of species and numbers of each species could not represent the worldwide trend which the editor assumes is the unstoppable and lasting declining of amphibians. To make the drastic downturn of numbers and species of amphibians convincing, other representative and clear samples should be listed such as the trend in some other national parks where a considerable swarm of amphibians inhabits. Moreover, not only national parks, but also some usual rivers and forests where amphibians amasses should be taken into consideration.


Secondly, even assuming the worldwide decline is an undisputable and widely acknowledged sense, the rejection of the causation that the introduction of trout mainly leads to the disappearance of amphibians is not logically justified and complete. Perhaps the biological threat theory is not adjusted to every circumstance where the decline happens, however, the possibility that it is adjusted therein is quite large and without potent materials the editor fails to exclude this possibility. In order to clarify the true cause of the phenomenon in Yosemite Park, some other details are necessary such as the data of the amphibians before and after the introduction of trout, the factual effects of the introduction and more examples against the biological threat theory.


Thirdly, the correlation between global pollution of water and air the amphibian declination is simplified into a cause-and-effect relation by the editor, which, as a matter of fact, is more complicated and needs more research and analyze. Such alternative scenarios should not be overlooked that the more frequent activities of human beings and killings of amphibians cause the decline. And some reasons based on the local conditions should not be excluded, either, such as the introduction discussed above or the sudden change of weather and temperature.


In sum, absent evidence that the numbers of amphibians in other areas are as the same and that the pollution of air and water affects the inhabitation and survival of amphibians tremendously and strongly, the argument of the editor could only be unsubstantiated. And in order to complete and validate his demonstration, the detailed refute of trout introduction explanation should be given.