【Big Fish】3月3日Argument150-By Edwardlzk

edwardlzkUID: 2676637

TOPIC: ARGUMENT150 - 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."
WORDS: 457
TIME: 00:30:00
DATE: 2010-3-3 15:32:34

In this letter to the editor of an environment magazine, the author aims to convince us that the declining number of world-wide amphibians must due to the global pollution of water and air. To support his/her assertion, a supporting study of the amphibians in Yosemite National Park in California is attached to the letter. The author's assertion seems reasonable, however, after scrutinizing the letter carefully, several critical flaws can be found that undermine the lines of reasoning.

To begin with, the author fails to provide concrete evidence to support his/her assumption that trout should not be blamed for the decreasing number of amphibians in Yosemite National Park. In the evidence the author cited in the letter, he only claim that the trout are not the reason that contribute to the decline of the numbers of amphibians just because it dose not explain the worldwide decline of amphibians. However, the purpose why the author use the study in Yosemite National Park is to demonstrate the conclusion that numbers of amphibians drop worldwide, here the conclusion is working as evidence, which means the author tries to use the assumption itself to certify the assumption. The author's confusion of logic certainly results in our skepticism to his conclusion unless convincing evidence can be found in the letter.

Moreover, assuming trout make no sense to the anticipated decline of amphibians, and the number of amphibians in Yosemite National Park is factually declining, we are not able to arrive in the conclusion which the number of amphibians worldwide is meanwhile decreasing as the author does. In the letter, the author neglects the possibility that other factors which may result in the decline such as climate, the human influence. Moreover, why the statistics in Yosemite National Park in California can represent the whole world? The author also fails to indicate, it is entirely possible that the majority of the amphibians in the world do not follow the trend in Yosemite National Park.

Finally, the author attributes the decline of the number of amphibians to the pollution of air and water. Nonetheless, the author does not demonstrate the cause indeed in Yosemite National Park is the air and water pollution, nor dose he/she succeed in illustrating that amphibians are sensitivity to the quality of air and water. After all, the author ignores to consider other possibilities which may consequently lead to the decrease of the number of amphibians.

In sum, the letter rests on several unreliable assumptions that render it unconvincing as it stands. To rectify these critical flaws, the author should provide more evidence to illustrate that trends discovered in Yosemite National Park can represent the whole world and the main cause of the decline should be the pollution of air and water.

beenusedUID: 2636942

In this letter to the editor of an environment magazine, the author aims to convince us that the declining number of world-wide amphibians must due to the global pollution of water and air. To support his/her assertion, a supporting study of the amphibians in Yosemite National Park in California is attached to the letter. The author's assertion seems reasonable, however, after scrutinizing the letter carefully, several critical flaws can be found that undermine the lines of reasoning.

To begin with, the author fails to provide concrete evidence to support his/her assumption that trout should not be blamed for the decreasing number of amphibians in Yosemite National Park. In the evidence the author cited in the letter, he only claim that the trout are not the reason that contribute to the decline of the numbers of amphibians just because it dose not explain the worldwide decline of amphibians. However, the purpose why the author use the study in Yosemite National Park is to demonstrate the conclusion that numbers of amphibians drop worldwide, here the conclusion is working as evidence, which means the author tries to use the assumption itself to certify the assumption. The author's confusion of logic certainly results in our skepticism to his conclusion unless convincing evidence can be found in the letter.

Moreover, assuming trout make no sense to the anticipated decline of amphibians, and the number of amphibians in Yosemite National Park is factually declining, we are not able to arrive in the conclusion which the number of amphibians worldwide is meanwhile decreasing as the author does. In the letter, the author neglects the possibility that other factors which may result in the decline such as climate, the human influence. Moreover, why the statistics in Yosemite National Park in California can represent the whole world? The author also fails to indicate, it is entirely possible that the majority of the amphibians in the world do not follow the trend in Yosemite National Park.

Finally, the author attributes the decline of the number of amphibians to the pollution of air and water. Nonetheless, the author does not demonstrate the cause indeed in Yosemite National Park is the air and water pollution, nor dose he/she succeed in illustrating that amphibians are sensitivity to the quality of air and water. After all, the author ignores to consider other possibilities which may consequently lead to the decrease of the number of amphibians.

In sum, the letter rests on several unreliable assumptions that render it unconvincing as it stands. To rectify these critical flaws, the author should provide more evidence to illustrate that trends discovered in Yosemite National Park can represent the whole world and the main cause of the decline should be the pollution of air and water.
Pretty persuasive~