[big fish]3月3日 ARGUMENT150 by wowoyuweiwei

wowoyuweiweiUID: 2754055

The author thought because of the Yosemite National Park introduced a new species of fish called trout which is fed on the eggs of amphibian that the number of it has been declined. And then the author said that this can not explain the worldwide decline of amphibian. Therefore he or she assumed the global pollution of water and air is the main reason. However, I think there is no obvious evidence supporting this assumption and the whole article was not logical.

To begin with, we found no direct relationship between the decline of amphibian and the introduction of trout. The phenomenon may not caused by trout. As we know, the weather, the soil, the water, the food and many other factors can influence a creature’s life. So, maybe some factor else may make the number of amphibian declined. For instance, as the letter showed, during the 77 years, from 1915 to 1992, the food or nutrient got less and less which made all four kinds of amphibians can not live any longer.

Secondly, even if the trout were the cases that influence the number of amphibians, there is still no evidence to blame the pollution. Some other elements may the key point instead of the reason given above at the beginning. We can not deny that recently we human hunt the wild animal for food, for fir or even just for fun. And unluckily, the amphibian is the target for human's hunting which can also cause the dramatic decline.

Thirdly, the sample showed by author can not represent the worldwide decline. It is just in a certain area where may have some thing unknown which also has relationship to the decline. We should not simply conclude the drops of amphibian’s number in other areas are for the same wherefore. For example, in a forest, the reason is that human cut trees down which makes them nowhere to live and finally died.

So, to bolster the argument, the writer should show us the evidence that the trout is the main factor causes the decline. For a better support, there also need other reasons to emphasize the pollution is the real killer. Furthermore, the writer had better give effective proofs to explain the worldwide drop to make reader believe the assumption.

NarashyUID: 2602795

1# wowoyuweiwei

The author thought because of the Yosemite National Park introduced a new species of fish called trout which is fed on the eggs of amphibian that the number of it has been declined(has declined). And then the author said that this can not explain the worldwide decline of amphibian. Therefore he or she assumed the global pollution of water and air is the main reason. However, I think there is no obvious evidence supporting this assumption and the whole article was not logical.

To begin with, we found no direct relationship between the decline of amphibian and the introduction of trout. The phenomenon may not caused by trout. As we know, the weather, the soil, the water, the food and many other factors can influence a creature’s life. So, maybe some factor else may make the number of amphibian declined. For instance, as the letter showed, during the 77 years, from 1915 to 1992, the food or nutrient got less and less which made all four kinds of amphibians can not live any longer.

Secondly, even if the trout were the cases that influence the number of amphibians, there is still no evidence to blame the pollution. Some other elements may the key point instead of the reason given above at the beginning. We can not deny that recently we human hunt the wild animal for food, for fir(fur) or even just for fun. And unluckily, the amphibian is the target for human's hunting which can also cause the dramatic decline.

Thirdly, the sample showed by author can not represent the worldwide decline. It is just in a certain area where may have some thing unknown which also has relationship to the decline. We should not simply conclude the drops of amphibian’s number in other areas are for the same wherefore. For example, in a forest, the reason is that human cut trees down which makes them nowhere to live and finally died.

So, to bolster the argument, the writer should show us the evidence that the trout is the main factor causes the decline. For a better support, there also need other reasons to emphasize the pollution is the real killer. Furthermore, the writer had better give effective proofs to explain the worldwide drop to make reader believe the assumption.

其实我看题的时候就很疑惑，trout这个原因到底是该赞还是该否定，因为作者最终的目的是肯定污染的原因。。。。我在文章里是赞成trout的，欢饮讨论！
其实每个要点都可以再详细地写几句，举一些例子之类的，那样文章可能会显得更饱满些！