【Big Fish】3月3日 Argument150-By Narashy

NarashyUID: 2602795

In this argument, the author concludes that the worldwide decline in the number of amphibians is due to the global pollution of water and air. In order to reinforce his/her argument, the author cites the studies in Yosemite National Park and points out that the deduction in Yosemite National can not explain the global decline. Although appealing, the argument rests on a series of unsupported assumptions which render it unconvincing as it stands.

First of all, the author fails to provide enough information on the decline in the numbers of amphibians in Yosemite. How is the water and air quality in there? Are they polluted? Are there any poisonous materials exist which is harmful to amphibians? It is entirely possible that the water and air condition remains the same as in the 1915 in which amphibians would live prosperly. It also appear reasonable, as pointed in the argument that, it is the introduction of trout that leads the deduction in both species and number, as we all know, the increase in enemy often leads to the decline in itself. However, from the argument we can see no sign that would rule out these cases, which make the whole argument unconvincing.

Second, even if the assumption that the decline of amphibians in Yosemite is due to pollution of water and air, which is completely unwarranted, it does not necessarily follow that the worldwide deduction of amphibians is due to the same reason. In other words, the author makes a false analogy. Other factors, such as climate may account for this decline in other places. For example, in north American which posses different climate with California, the decline in the number of amphibians is probably the cold weather and lack of food or even exists of enemy. Further analysis and investigation on these factors should be conducted before any conclusions are obtained.

In addtion, the author fails to provide the evidence on how the water and air are polluted and how these pollution affect the amphibians. Unless it can be shown that the pollution of water and air do exist in the living habitat of amphibians and do have bad effects on them, the whole conclusion is highly suspectable.

To sum up, the conclusion reached in the argument that it is global pollution of water and air that account for the deduction in the numbers of amphibians is not well-supported. In order to convince me, the author should provide concrete information about the water and air condition in Yosemite and report whether they were polluted. To better evalute the argument, other factors influencing the living of ampibians should been considered.

tc1220UID: 2585174

明天来拍~~~~

tc1220UID: 2585174

In this argument, the author concludes that the worldwide decline in the number of amphibians is due to the global pollution of water and air. In order to reinforce his/her argument, the author cites the studies in Yosemite National Park and points out that the deduction in Yosemite National can not explain the global decline. Although appealing, the argument rests on a series of unsupported assumptions which render it unconvincing as it stands.

First of all, the author fails to provide enough information on the decline in the numbers of amphibians in Yosemite. How is the water and air quality in there? Are they polluted? Are there any poisonous materials exist which is harmful to amphibians? It is entirely possible that the water and air condition remains the same as in the 1915 in which amphibians would live prosperly. It also appears reasonable, as pointed in the argument that, it is the introduction of trout that leads the deduction in both species and number,. as we all known, the increase in enemy often leads to the decline in itself. However, from the argument we can see no sign that would rule out these cases, which make the whole argument unconvincing.

Second, even if the assumption that the decline of amphibians in Yosemite is due to pollution of water and air, which is completely unwarranted, it does not necessarily follow that the worldwide deduction of amphibians is due to the same reason. In other words, the author makes a false analogy. Other factors, such as climate may account for this decline in other places. For example, in north American which posses different climate with California, the decline in the number of amphibians is probably the cold weather and lack of food or even exists of enemy. Further analysis and investigation on these factors should be conducted before any conclusions are obtained.
非常不错的两点
In addtion, the author fails to provide the evidence on how the water and air are polluted and how these pollution affect the amphibians. Unless it can be shown that the pollution of water and air do exist in the living habitat of amphibians and do have bad effects on them, the whole conclusion is highly suspectable.
这点也OK~，不过有点少。
我觉得还有一点可以攻击，就是observed 这个词，他说明了采样的不专业性！！
To sum up, the conclusion reached in the argument that it is global pollution of water and air that account for the deduction in the numbers of amphibians is not well-supported. In order to convince me, the author should provide concrete information about the water and air condition in Yosemite and report whether they were polluted. To better evalute the argument, other factors influencing the living of ampibians should been considered.