1010G【fish】agument45

azure9UID: 2789030

45The following appeared as an editorial in a wildlife journal.
"Arctic deer live on islands in Canada's arctic region. They search for food by moving over ice from island to island during the course of a year. Their habitat is limited to areas warm enough to sustain the plants on which they feed, and cold enough, at least some of the year, for the ice to cover the sea separating the islands, allowing the deer to travel over it. Unfortunately, according to reports from local hunters, the deer populations are declining. Since these reports coincide with recent global warming trends that have caused the sea ice to melt, we can conclude that the decline in arctic deer populations is the result of deer being unable to follow their age-old migration patterns across the frozen sea."

请于5月28日晚23点前提交作业。并把作业word文档发给互改的组员
1--->2指，1帮2改，2的作文给1改

第一次互改顺序：
1--->11
3--->1
5--->3
7--->5
9--->7
11--->9

第一次自改文上交的时间是：5月29日晚23点

第二次互改的顺序：
1--->3
3--->5
5--->7
7--->9
9--->11
11--->1




第二次自改文的上交时间是：5月31日晚23点

azure9UID: 2789030

The author conclude that the declining of the deer populations is caused by the change of the deer's age-old migration patterns, for the global warming lead to the thawing of the sea ice. I find this argument is logically flawed in several critical respects.

To begin with, global warming is a general trend of the world's climate; it can not reflect the climate of a certain area. There is a possibility that the average temperature of Canada's arctic is not influence by global warming, therefore, the sea ice in this area rarely melt. The deer can still go across the sea ice from island to island to search for food. The author needs further evidence to prove that the global warming did effect the thawing of the sea ice in arctic region.

Even if the global warming did cause the sea ice thawing in Canada's arctic region, the author provides no certain evidence and statistics to show that the degree the sea ice in arctic melt. There is the possibility that there just a few part of the sea ice in arctic had been thawed and it is still solid enough for deer to walk on it. Lacking those statistics, I can not convince that the thawing of the sea ice in arctic can enable the deer to go through it.

Even if the sea ice in Canada's arctic region melt to a degree that the deer can not walk on it, the author fails to prove that there is another way for arctic dears to across the sea from island to island. Perhaps, the arctic dears can swim across the sea, when there is no sea ice for them to walk on, they would chose to immerse into the water and swim to the other island. Or perhaps, they have the ability to draw support from the tree trunk to flout them to moving between islands. Unless the author proves that the arctic dears have no such ability to across the sea, the conclusion can not be found.

In conclusion, the assuming that there is a causal relationship between the global warming and the decline in arctic deer populations is unfair. and the author fails to convince me that the change of the migration habits of the arctic dears would lead the decline of the arctic deer populations.

azure9UID: 2789030

改小謙：

In this argument, based on an unreasonable deduction the author concluded that due to blocking of arctic deer’s traditional way of migration their populations are decreasing. To substantiate the author’s argument, he/she cited doubtful reports from local hunters and assertively set a cause and effect relationship between global warming and deer’ down-regulating population. Although this argument seems to be true in the first sight, a scrutiny shows that it suffers several defects.

Firstly, the reports from local hunters are suspicious. On one hand, no evidence support that they have told the truth.(這個點我覺得有點古怪誒...) It is possible that local hunters who have killed numbers of deer lied that deer are less for some other reasons. They could be the murder of deer. On the other hand, the argument did not offer the number and percentage of hunters who held this opinion. What about the other hunters and even other citizens. Even assuming the hunters did not lie and most of local hunters held this opinion, we could not conclude that deer become less. The author said that deer migrate from one place to another place, thus the oral testimonies from one local could not support the whole population of deer is less. Deer might live in other place of the world that local hunters do not know.

Another reasonable doubt is whether or not deer’s roads are clogged by global warming. None of the evidence showing global warming melt large amount of ice in arctic was presented.很棒得觀點 Although it is possible that global warming trends resulted in the sea ice to melt, does it have great destructive to melt the entire ice one deer’s road? As the argument said that it is recently that global warming has happened, it should not have the time cumulative effect to reduce deer’s population.

Lastly the author failed to rule out other factors which result reducing populations of arctic deer. Again hunters could reduce the amount of deer. Pollutions could poison deer. No food could cause the deer to die. Since deer feed on a special food, some factors could result in the dying out of the plants. Without ruling out these possibilities, we could not conclude that global warming result in down going of deer population.
反駁點很好，再把可能性在分析得深入一點說服力會更強。

All in all, the author needs offer more scientific data of the population change of the arctic deer, and strong evidence of the cause and effect relationship between global warming and reducing deer. Without concerning about the defects that I stated above, the author’s conclusion is unbelievable.

文章結構很清楚，可是我覺得第一個反駁點有點怪。

谦行天下UID: 2797557

In this argument, based on an unreasonable deduction the author concluded that due to blocking of arctic deer’s traditional way of migration their populations are decreasing. To substantiate the author’s argument, he/she cited doubtful reports from local hunters and assertively set a cause and effect relationship between global warming and deer’ down-regulating population. Although this argument seems to be true in the first sight, a scrutiny shows that it suffers several defects.

Firstly, the reports from local hunters are suspicious. On one hand, no evidence support that they have told the truth. It is possible that local hunters who have killed numbers of deer lied that deer are less for some other reasons. They could be the murder of deer. On the other hand, the argument did not offer the number and percentage of hunters who held this opinion. What about the other hunters and even other citizens. Even assuming the hunters did not lie and most of local hunters held this opinion, we could not conclude that deer become less. The author said that deer migrate from one place to another place, thus the oral testimonies from one local could not support the whole population of deer is less. Deer might live in other place of the world that local hunters do not know.

Another reasonable doubt is whether or not deer’s roads are clogged by global warming. None of the evidence showing global warming melt large amount of ice in arctic was presented. Although it is possible that global warming trends resulted in the sea ice to melt, does it have great destructive to melt the entire ice one deer’s road? As the argument said that it is recently that global warming has happened, it should not have the time cumulative effect to reduce deer’s population.

Lastly the author failed to rule out other factors which result reducing populations of arctic deer. Again hunters could reduce the amount of deer. Pollutions could poison deer. No food could cause the deer to die. Since deer feed on a special food, some factors could result in the dying out of the plants. Without ruling out these possibilities, we could not conclude that global warming result in down going of deer population.

All in all, the author needs offer more scientific data of the population change of the arctic deer, and strong evidence of the cause and effect relationship between global warming and reducing deer. Without concerning about the defects that I stated above, the author’s conclusion is unbelievable.
————————第一次自改文——————————
感谢小c
In this argument, based on an unreasonable deduction the author concluded that due to blocking of arctic deer’s traditional way of migration their populations are decreasing. To substantiate the author’s argument, he/she cited doubtful reports from local hunters and assertively set a cause and effect relationship between global warming and deer’ down-regulating population. Although this argument seems to be true in the first sight, a scrutiny shows that it suffers several defects.

Firstly, the reports from local hunters are suspicious. On one hand, hunters may hide truth because they are the killers of deer. It is possible that deer are less because local hunters have killed too much. They could hide killing too much deer by telling people that the number of deer is reduced for some other reasons. On the other hand, the argument did not offer the number and percentage of hunters who held this opinion. What about the other hunters and even other citizens. Even assuming the hunters did not lie and most of local hunters held this opinion, we could not conclude that deer become less. The author said that deer migrate from one place to another place, thus the oral testimonies from one local could not support the whole population of deer is less. Deer might live in other place of the world that local hunters do not know.

Another reasonable doubt is whether or not deer’s roads are clogged by global warming.
None of the evidence showing global warming melt large amount of ice in arctic was presented. Although it is possible that global warming trends resulted in the sea ice to melt, does it have great destructive to melt the entire ice one deer’s road? As the argument said that it is recently that global warming has happened, it should not have the time cumulative effect to reduce deer’s population.

Lastly the author failed to rule out other factors which result reducing populations of arctic deer. Again hunters could reduce the amount of deer. Pollutions could poison deer. No food could cause the deer to die. Since deer feed on a special food, some factors could result in the dying out of the plants. Without ruling out these possibilities, we could not conclude that global warming result in down going of deer population.


======第二次自改文===================
polo提的语言问题对呢！向你学习！

All in all, the author needs offer more scientific data of the population change of the arctic deer, and strong evidence of the cause and effect relationship between global warming and reducing deer. Without concerning about the defects that I stated above, the author’s conclusion is unbelievable.

In this argument, based on an unreasonable deduction the author concluded that due to blocking of arctic deer’s traditional way of migration their populations are decreasing. To substantiate the author’s argument, he/she cited doubtful reports from local hunters and assertively
set a cause and effect relationship between global warming and deer’ down-regulating population. Although this argument seems to be true in the first sight, a
scrutiny shows that it suffers several defects.

Firstly, the reports from local hunters are suspicious. On one hand, hunters may hide truth because they are the killers of deer.
It is possible that deer are less because local hunters have killed too much. They could hide killing too much deer by telling people that the number of deer is reduced for some other reasons. On the other hand, the argument did not offer the number and percentage of hunters who held this opinion. What about the other hunters and even other citizens. Even assuming the hunters did not lie and most of local hunters held this opinion, we could not conclude that deer become less. The author said that deer migrates
from one place to another place, thus the oral
testimonies
from one local could not support the whole population of deer is less. Deer might live in other places
of the world that local hunters do not know.

Another reasonable doubt is whether or not deer’s roads are
clogged
by global warming. None of the evidence showing global warming melts large amount of ice in arctic was presented. Although it is possible that global warming trends
result
in the sea ice to melt, does it have great destructive to melt the entire ice
on
deer’s road? It could be possible that global warming does not affect the road for deer migration. As the argument said that it is recently that global warming has happened, it should not have the time
cumulative effect
to reduce deer’s population. Further more migration only happens in some of the year, which suggests that when some of the year the road for migration is intact, deer could survive.

Lastly the author failed to rule out other factors which result reducing populations of arctic deer. Again hunters could reduce the amount of deer.
Pollutions could bring some
toxic substance, which will do great harm to the deer.
Besides, some factors can lead to the great decrease of the special food, which the arctic deer feed on. Then the population of the deer would reduce for lack of food.
Without ruling out these possibilities, we could not conclude that global warming result in down going of deer population.
All in all, the author needs offer more scientific data of the population change of the arctic deer, and strong evidence of the cause and effect relationship between global warming and reducing deer. Without concerning about the defects that I
have
stated above, the author’s conclusion is unbelievable.

谦行天下UID: 2797557

改 polo

In the argument, the arguer gives a breif introduction of the life habit and living habitat of arctic deer. Then based on the local hunters' reports that the deer population are declining and global warming trends causing the sea ice to melt, the author make a conclusion that the decline in arctic deer populations result from the influence on their migtation[migration] pattern by melted sea ice. A careful examination of this argument can reveal how groundless the conclusion is.

As a threshold matter, the validity of the reports from local hunters deserves to be suspected. We have good reason to wonder whether they use the scientific methods to survey and evaluate the quantity of arctic deer. With the changes of environment, the living habit of arctic deer could produce changes.And these changes may make a difference on the hunters[觉得这句意思表达得不太清楚].By chance, the changes render these deer free from being killed by hunters.Then the hunters would say that the population of arctic deer has decreased.

//本反驳点很正确。

Secondly, the author just mentioned[时态建议全篇提到作者说什么的时候保持一致！前面用一般时态就全部用一般时态] that global warming trends result in the sea ice to melt and did not provide the specific areas and time. Then there is a question that whether the areas involve arctic deer's habitat and the time covers the period of the deer's migration. Even if the global temperature increased, it could just be a small increment and if the deer's habitat can be relatively cold, the small increment cannot lead ot[?to] melting of sea ice.Then arctic deer's migration can escape from the influence.Aside from the above analysis, another question is related to time.As the argument referred that the migration just happens in some of the year  when it is cold eough and it does not continue though[through] out the whole year.So in spite of the increase of temperature, there may exist a period that the temperature of the deer's habitat is low enough to counteract the increment and the sea can freeze.

//本论点是我极其想表扬的一个，因为你反驳得精准到位，有条理性，有理有据！

Last but not leatst[least], the arguer neglect the possible factors that contribute to the decline in arctic deer population, such as the environmental pollution, the excessive killing and so on. Since the arguer has failed to account for these possibilities, the claim that global warming trends is responsible to the decline in the quantity of arctic deer is completely  unwarranted.

//可以再稍稍深入

In conclusion, the argument is not well reasoned. To make it logically acceptable, the arguer require a[an] authoritative report on the deer population.Besides, the details in regard to the effect from global warming on arctic deer's habitat is also needed.Then, the arguer should conduct a scientific and effective research on the factors influencing the arctic deer's population which should involve the referred factors above and the others.Only in this way can the argument be more convincing.

polo的语句有变化性，除了一些小问题，总体给我的感觉非常好！

不失为一篇好文！

凝羽欲翔UID: 2733350

In this analysis, the arguer claims that global warming results in the declining number of arctic deer, which comes from the statistic of local hunter. The conclusion is rather plausible on the surface, for the sea ice plays such a key role in arctic deer’s life. Once it’s destroyed, it will cause great danger to their existence. However, the argument is fraught with vague, oversimplified and unwarranted assumptions.

Firstly, where the latest number of arctic deer comes from is not convincing. In the argument, we find that the number is reported from the local hunters, who have such limited facilities and equipments to get overall statistic. After all, the area of arctic is so large that it is impossible for the local hunters to rush over the entire place to count the number at the same time. Obviously, if we want a more precise statistic, we’d better turn to specific statistical organ for help.

Secondly, the arguer fails to show us whether the ice on arctic has melt due to the recent global warming. Granted, it is undeniable that as global temperature increases, the sea ice melts a lot, swallowing the living environment of various kinds of animals that rely heavily on the sea ice. However, the arguer shows little about whether the arctic is affected by such temperature changes, let alone mentions whether it does influence the living place of arctic deer directly. What’s more, the arctic deer do not have a strict requirement that the sea ice should keep for a long period. They only need it in some of the year. Thus, even though the global warming may reduce the sea ice on Arctic, once the amount of the ice remains steady when arctic deer need, it does not matter a lot.

Thirdly, from the argument, suppose that the deer did decline, there lacks some evidence to prove the relationship between the downtrend of the population and their unable to follow their age-old migration patterns across the frozen sea. Though in history, many species extinct due to the change of living environment, there are still many factors that play a part in it, such as overhunting, nature disasters, food scarce and the like. However, in this argument, the author only draws the conclusion by coincidence of the unsupported declining number of arctic deer and the recent global warming trends. Obviously, from this angle, it’s not so convincing.

In summary, the conclusion reached in this argument is invalid and misleading. Before we accept the conclusion, the arguer must adopt a more precise number of the population of arctic deer. To solidify the argument, the arguer would have to cite more results of research concerning the relationship between the population of arctic deer and the melt of ice due to global warming.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
一改 谢谢Agnes~
In this analysis, the arguer claims that global warming results in the declining number of arctic deer, which comes from the statistics of local hunters. The conclusion is rather plausible on the surface, for the sea ice plays such a key role in arctic deer’s life. Once it’s destroyed, it will cause great danger to their existence. However, the argument is fraught with vague, oversimplified and unwarranted assumptions.

Firstly, where the latest number of arctic deer comes from is not convincing. In the argument, we find that the number is reported from the local hunters, who have such limited facilities and equipments to get overall statistic. After all, the area of arctic is so large that it is impossible for the local hunters to rush over the entire place to count the number at the same time. Obviously, if we want a more precise statistic, we’d better turn to specific statistical organ for help.

Secondly, the arguer fails to show us whether the ice on arctic has melt due to the recent global warming. Granted, it is undeniable that as global temperature increases, the sea ice melts a lot, swallowing the living environment of various kinds of animals that rely heavily on the sea ice. However, the arguer shows little about whether the arctic is affected by such temperature changes, let alone mention(注意：应用原形) whether it does influence the living place of arctic deer directly. What’s more, the arctic deer do not have a strict requirement that the sea ice should keep for a long period. They only need it in some of the year. Thus, even though the global warming may reduce the sea ice on Arctic, once the amount of the ice remains steady when arctic deer need, it does not matter a lot.

Thirdly, from the argument, suppose that the population of deer did decline（Agnes好细心的撒~）, there lacks some evidence to prove the relationship between the downtrend of the population and their disability of following（嗯嗯，学习了）follow their age-old migration patterns across the frozen sea. Though in history, many species extinct due to the change of living environment, there are still many factors that play a part in it, such as overhunting, nature disasters, food scarce and the like. However, in this argument, the author only draws the conclusion by coincidence of the unsupported declining number of arctic deer and the recent global warming trends. Obviously, from this angle, it’s not so convincing.

In summary, the conclusion reached in this argument is invalid and misleading. Before we accept the conclusion, the arguer must adopt a more precise number of the population of arctic deer. To solidify the argument, the arguer would have to cite more results of research concerning the relationship between the population of arctic deer and the melt of ice due to global warming.

franceneUID: 2818958

In the essay above, the author makes a causal relationship with the decline of Arctic deer population to the recent global warming trends. The main reason he/she insists on is that the rising of temperature made the ice melt which prohibit those Arctic deer to follow the path to find food which is their way of living from ancient till now.

Firstly, the evidence that the author provides is insufficient to support the conclusion that the rising temperature hinder the migration of the Arctic deer. A concrete geographic position for the habitation of Arctic deer is vaguely stated in the passage which is a key proof to this line of reasoning. Without this detail, we cannot assert that global warming make a directly threaten to the place which Arctic deer activate. What about those deer live in a southern part of the Arctic Circle which is not so much influenced by global warming?

Secondly, there is little evidence through the passage to prove that the prohibition of the migration of Arctic deer will destroy the food resources for those deer which caused their death. It is said in the front of the passage that Arctic deer only travel around for food in some time of the year, but not the whole year. In summer days, when the weather is warm enough for the plants grow in this area, Arctic deer may have a relatively stable food resources. Whether to take a migration or not will not be a key issue for their living. If the decline of Arctic deer happens in the warm days of the year, The conclusion that breaking the old way of migration result in the number decline of the group is unwarranted.

Thirdly, Whether the lack of food makes the decline of Arctic deer population is still doubtful. There may be other reasons that the author did not notice. What if those hunter take too much hunt on Arctic deer recently? Or there are some other wild beasts emerges in this area which lives on Arctic deer? All of these factors are supposed to be considered for the conclusion.

Last but not least, there are still doubtful points which is not liable in the statement. Is it the real truth that the number of Arctic deer decline, which is reported from local hunters, how did they get this statistics? Is there any possibilities that any statistical mistakes made by them for their unprofessional identities?

To sum up, The author commits logic flaws in the given argument. To make the passage more convincing, the author should provide further evidences to show the logical relationship between those materials.

*****************************************************************************

Self-revised 1st edition


In the essay above, the author makes a causal relationship between the decline of Arctic deer population and the blocking of the migration of the deer. The main reason he/she insists on is that global warming is frequently mentioned at the same time that this decline appears. Thus the author asserts the rising temperature made the ice melt which prohibit those Arctic deer to follow the path to find food which is their way of living from ancient till now. This results in the decline of Arctic deer population.

Firstly, the evidence that the author provides is insufficient to support the assumption that the hinder migration caused the reduction of the deer. It is widely acknowledged that the animals live in extremely cold area need to migrate every year which as Arctic deer did that is mentioned in the argument. Travelling to a relatively warm place where a more suitable circumstance is provided for the plants growing which is the resources of the food for those animals. This is the reason why cold area animals need to migrate to sustain their lives. As it is mentioned in the front of the argument that Arctic deer only travel around in some time of the year, but not the whole year. In summer days, when the weather is warm enough for the plants grow in this area, Arctic deer should have a relatively stable food resources. Whether to take a migration or not will not be a key issue for their living. If the decline of Arctic deer happens in the warm days of the year, The conclusion that breaking the old way of migration result in the number decline of the group is unwarranted.

What’s more, There may be other reasons for the decreased number of Arctic deer What if those hunter take too much hunt on Arctic deer recently? Or there are some other wild beasts emerges in this area which lives on Arctic deer? All of these factors should be taken into consideration for the conclusion.It cannot easily validate that it is the migration blocking result in the decline of the deer.



Even if the blocking of migration do have certain relationship with the decline of Arctic deer, It is still hard to confirm that the blocking of the migration has truely happened or not. As we all know, global warming is a climate phenomenon which takes great effect on those places that is extremely cold for the reason that the creatures there are quite sensitive to the change of climate. While in some other relatively warm area, rising of temperature may influence a little. A concrete geographic position of the habitat that Arctic deer live in is vaguely stated in the passage which is a key proof to this line of reasoning. Canada Arctic region is a rather general statement which is not easily inferred that whether the change of climate takes much influence or not. Without more convincing details, the truth that global warming make a directly threaten to the place which Arctic deer activate cannot be verified.


Last but not least, there are still doubtful points which is not liable in the statement. Is it the real truth that the number of Arctic deer decline, which is reported from local hunters who are not specialists for a statistic survey? How did they get this statistics? Is there any possibilities that some statistical mistakes made by them for their unprofessional identities? The author should provide future evidence to confirm this viewpoints.

To sum up, The author commits logic flaws in the given argument. The main evidence that the the block of migration to make the decline of the deer is still need to be strengthen. Also, more details are supposed to be cited there in the passage to testify the authenticity of the migration blocking. To make the passage more convincing, the author should provide further evidences to show the logical relationship between those materials.



To AGNES:

The word I used there was “causal”(因果) not “casual”(随意). Causal relationship因果关系
“Relationship between A and B “is better. Thx!
Yeah. I will make my explanation more concrete and improved my conclusion in the first self-revised version


TO小谦：

(How do you know that the southern part of Arctic Circle is not so much influenced by global warming? It may lack some evidence~)

<I will make it more convincing in the revised edition, thx!>

（In the argument, I think, the author mainly focuses on the relationship between the population decline and the being unable to follow their age-old migration patterns across the frozen sea, while he/she doesn't mention that the prohibition of the migration destroy the food resources that cause their decline.）


<Thx for ur accurate attack! That reminds me to reorganize my viewpoints back to the main conflicts of the argument. I benefit a lot from your comment! Thx again .>

franceneUID: 2818958

First revision for AZURE


Revision of mistakes
Good expression to learn
Comments from the reviewer

The author conclude<concludes> that the declining of the deer populations is caused by the change of the deer's age-old migration patterns, for<the reason that> the global warming lead<leads> to the thawing of the sea ice. I find this argument is logically flawed in several critical respects.

To begin with, global warming is a general trend of the world's climate; it can not reflect the climate of a certain area.<Applause! good and strong point> There is a possibility that the average temperature of Canada's arctic is not influence<influenced>by global warming, therefore, the sea ice in this area rarely melt. The deer can still go across the sea ice from island to island to search for food. The author needs further evidence to prove that the global warming did effect the thawing of the sea ice in arctic region.


<In this paragraph, the author made a clear and strong point, the reviewer thinks this is a quite good beginning.>

Even if the global warming did cause the sea ice thawing in Canada's arctic region, the author provides no certain evidence and statistics to show that the degree<in which> the sea ice in arctic melt. There is the possibility that there just a few part of the sea ice in arctic had been thawed and it is still solid enough for deer to walk on it. Lacking those statistics, I can not convince that the thawing of the sea ice in arctic can enable the deer to go through it.


<The reviewer thinks the viewpoint posed in this paragraph is a little bit similar to the one in the last paragraph. Maybe the author can join these two together.>

Even if the sea ice in Canada's arctic region melt to a degree that the deer can not walk on it, the author fails to prove that there is another way for arctic dears to across the sea from island to island. Perhaps, the arctic dears can swim across the sea, when there is no sea ice for them to walk on, they would chose to immerse into the water and swim to the other island. Or perhaps, they have the ability to draw support from the tree trunk to flout them to moving between islands. Unless the author proves that the arctic dears have no such ability to across the sea, the conclusion can not be found.


<The reviewer thinks in this paragraph, the author committed a small mistake that she seems to begin to challenge the common sense instead of seeking for the logical flaws in the argument. Such as “why the deer cant swim to migrate?” the reviewer thinks when trying to pose a question like this, the requester should also answer the question in his/her mind first: “how they can swim to migrate?” .things like this is more like a viewpoint which need to be prove by some other examples rather than materials to support a certain viewpoint. This is a kinda general knowledge that everybody believes it, to challenge it will make the discuss more like a sophistry .This made the viewpoints in this paragraph a little bit far-fetched.>

In conclusion, the assuming that there is a causal relationship between the global warming and the decline in arctic deer populations is unfair. and the author fails to convince me that the change of the migration habits of the arctic dears would lead the decline of the arctic deer populations.


<The reviewer thinks this argument makes a clear structure of the passage though the author still need to develop the stand points which can support the debate efficiently.>


**************************************************************************

Second Revision for Agnes

Revision of mistakes
Good expression to learn
Comments from the reviewer

The editorial assumes that the decline in arctic deer populations is the result of deer being unable to follow their age-old migration patterns across the frozen sea. The arguer cites reports from local hunters to support the conclusion, which only make opposing effects <The reviewer think the flaw in the passage is just insufficient of evidence ,not going so far to make opposing effects> to prove its argument.

To start with, the arguer’s assertion is just based on the cited reports from local hunters with no more research background or further information about the researchers-the local hunters. We have no idea about the scientificity and reliability of this argument for none of us can figure out who those hunters are, how they can<delete it> ensure the results is <are>accurate, or whether their method of counting the deer populations is scientific or not. Without solving these problems, the arguer can not
arbitrarily make any unreasonable allegations.

In addition, even though the arguer gives us a clear explanation of the scientificity of the local hunters’ reports, there still lie logical problems in the assertion<that….(there are many assertions in the given passage, it is better to make sure which one u gonna refute in this paragraph)>. The arguer mentions that the reports from hunters coincide with recent global warming trends. However, The reports is related to animals and global warming trends is in relation to the climate, so no automatic relationship can be found to support the argument. <The reviewer think this point is a little bit far-fetched coz the arguer have explained that just because the climate change makes the ice melt which block the deer to migrate that result in the decline of deer, the relationship between these two is clarified in the passage, the reviewer don think this is a good point worthy to debate> What’s more, there is no evidence to prove that recent global warming trends directly lead to the decline in deer. Then, how can the arguer easily assert the coincidence lying between the reports and global warming trends? The arguer fails to further demonstrate the connection between them before making a cursory conclusion.

What’s more, the arguer drew a conclusion from a coincidence, which can hardly convince readers of what he or she has asserted.The arguer employs the term “coincide with” to describe the relationship between the reports and global warming, disclosing his or her uncertainty which reveals the conclusion made behind is very unreasonable. Despite the uncertainty, the arguer still draws a seemingly exact conclusion from those uncertain proofs.

<this viewpoints here seems to have been proved in the last paragraph already, The reviewer suggests to join these two together>

Last but not least, despite all the problems mentioned above, when making conclusion, the arguer unfairly attributes the decrease in arctic deer populations to their disability of following their age-old migration patterns across the frozen sea caused by global warming without taking other possible factors into consideration, such as the increase in their natural enemy populations and the shortage of survival food, all of which can do harm to the deer’s biological chain leading them to death<die>. As a result, considering their migration alone can not comprehensively explain the declining number of the arctic deer.

In sum, besides committing logical problems, the arguer fails to bring out solid evidence to attest the conclusion. To strengthen the force of proving the argument, it is advisable for the arguer to complement the cited reports made by the local hunters with more scientific methods and statistics. Furthermore, an all-sided consideration of the possible causes to the changing Arctic deer population will be appreciated to make the argument more reliable and considerate.

lty900301UID: 2715509

Outline:
1.第一点，当地猎人的报告，不是专业机构的调查报告，因为当地猎人活动的局限性，导致他们的调查结果鹿的数量下降不可信,并且题目中提到报告中说的是鹿的数量，而结论说的是北极鹿的数量。
2.第二点，全球变暖只是个泛指，而且文中提到的是全球变暖的趋势，很有可能目前状况下，全球的气候还无法使得结冰海面融化。
3.第三点，即使鹿的数量真的下降了，并且真的是北极鹿生活的那块区域冰面也融化了。作者的结论仍然是不公正的。还有很多其他可能导致北极鹿死亡，比如说工业污染已经蔓延到极地区，猎人的大量捕杀，生物链的破坏等等。

At my first glance, the argument presented above seemed to be sound. However after I have looked into it, I find that there are some fallacies. In this argument, to support his/her conclusion, the author cites the suspect reports which was made by local hunters, and the ongoing global warming trends are simultaneous with these reports, which makes him incorrectly believe it is the reason causing the melt of sea ice.

In the first place, their is no precise figure to convince the reader of the decline of the arctic deer populations. The author has cited the reports from local hunters, which cannot be the convincing reports. Local hunters are the people who want to hunt animals in exchange for money, whereupon it is very likely that they issue these reports to cover up the crime they have made. Moreover, the local hunters' home range is restricted to a certain district. It is extremely possible that their reports are based on a limited statistic. Besides, according to the reports, it is deers but not arctic deers populations are decreasing, which means arctic deers population may be maintained or even increacing. Hence, unless the arguer quote a survey from professional bodies, his/her assertion that the population of arctic deers has reduced is questionable.

Secondly, the arguer unfairly claims that global warming trends melt the sea ice. Global warming mentioned in the argument may just be the begining of these trends, during which, the temperature is not hot enough to melt the sea ice. Even if the sea ice can be melted, it is possible that the sea ice where arctic deers settled was not melted. Therefore, it is necessary for the author to establish a reasonable casual relation ship between the melt and the global warming trends.

Last, but not least, assuming that there is a decline in arctic deers population and the global warming melt the sea ice where they inhabited, we are not convinced by the author's unfair conclusion that the decline is caused by their being incapable to follow the arctic deers age-old migration ways. There are many reasons that can also lead to their death. For example, the industrial pollution which has extended to Canada's arctic region, the damage of biological chain, the battue of these animals and so on.

To sum up, everything has lots of possibility. Thus, to make the conclusion more reliable, the author needs to refer to the professional institutions and provide a more credible report. Moreover, it is essential for him/her to reorganize this argument according to the problems I mentioned above.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
第一次自改
POLO指出的问题我发现了，做了一些修改。是我审题不清。。。哎，夜里写文章就是烂啊。。。

At my first glance, the argument presented above seemed to be sound. However after I have looked into it, I find that there are some fallacies. In this argument, to support his/her conclusion, the author cites the suspect reports which was made by local hunters, and the ongoing global warming trends are simultaneous with these reports, which makes him/her incorrectly believe it is the reason causing the melt of sea ice where arctic deers live and that changed their habits in migration.

In the first place, their is no precise figure to convince the reader of the decline in the arctic deer populations. The author has cited the reports from local hunters, which cannot be the convincing reports. Local hunters are the people who want to hunt animals in exchange for money, whereupon it is very likely that they issue these reports to cover up the crime they have made. Moreover, the local hunters' home range is restricted to a certain district. It is extremely possible that their reports are based on a limited statistic. Besides, according to the reports, it is deers but not arctic deers populations are decreasing, which means arctic deers population may be maintained or even increasing. Hence, unless the arguer quote a survey from professional bodies, his/her assertion that the population of arctic deers has reduced is questionable.

Secondly, the arguer unfairly implies that global warming trends melt the habitat of arctic deers. Global warming mentioned in the argument may just be the begining of these trends, during which period, the temperature is not high enough to melt the sea ice in the Arctic Ocean. Even if the sea ice can be melted, it is possible that the sea ice where arctic deers settled was not melted. Therefore, it is necessary for the author to establish a reasonable casual relation ship between the melt and the global warming trends.

Last, but not least, assuming that there is a decline in arctic deers population and the global warming melt the sea ice where they inhabited, we are not convinced by the author's unfair conclusion that the decline is caused by their being incapable to follow the arctic deers age-old migration ways. There are many reasons that can also lead to their death. For example, the industrial pollution which has extended to Canada's arctic region, the damage of biological chain, the battue of these animals and so on.

To sum up, everything has lots of possibility. Thus, to make the conclusion more reliable, the author needs to refer to the professional institutions and provide a more credible report. Moreover, it is essential for him/her to reorganize this argument according to the problems I mentioned above.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
第二次自改

At my first glance, the argument presented above seemed to be sound. However after I have looked into it, I found that there are some fallacies. In this argument, to support his/her conclusion, the author cites the questionable reports which was made by local hunters, and the ongoing global warming trends are simultaneous with these reports, which makes him/her incorrectly believe it is the reason causing melt of the sea ice where arctic deers live and leading to the changes of their habits in migration.

In the first place, their is no precise figure to convince the reader of the decline in the arctic deer populations. The author has cited the reports from local hunters, which cannot be the convincing reports. Local hunters are the people who want to hunt animals in exchange for money, whereupon it is very likely that they issue these reports to cover up the crime they have made. Moreover, the local hunters' home range is restricted to a certain district, so it is extremely possible that their reports are based on a limited statistic. Besides, according to the reports, it is deers but not arctic deers populations are decreasing, which means arctic deers population may maintain or even increase. Hence, unless the arguer quote a survey from professional bodies, his/her assertion that the population of arctic deers has reduced is questionable.

Secondly, the arguer unfairly implies that global warming trends melt the habitat of arctic deers. Global warming mentioned in the argument may just be the begining of these trends, during which period, the temperature is not high enough to melt the sea ice in the Arctic Ocean. Even if the sea ice can be melted, it is possible that the sea ice where arctic deers settled was not melted. Therefore, it is necessary for the author to establish a reasonable causal relationship between the melt and the global warming trends.

Last, but not least, assuming that there is a decline in arctic deer population and the global warming melt the sea ice where they inhabited, we are not convinced by the author's cursory conclusion that the decline is caused by their being incapable to follow the arctic deers age-old migration ways. There are many reasons that can also lead to their death. For example, the industrial pollution which may has already extended to Canada's arctic region, the damage of biological chain, the battue of these animals and so on.

To sum up, everything has lots of possibility. Thus, to make the conclusion more reliable, the author needs to refer to the professional institutions and provide a more credible report. Moreover, it is essential for him/her to reorganize this argument according to the problems I mentioned above.

lty900301UID: 2715509

第一改——Agnes

建议 错误修改 好词好句 疑问

The editorial assumes that the decline in arctic deer populations is caused by the melting sea ice(我认为这里这样写不好，原文作者的结论是鹿无法按照原有方式迁徙时导致数量下降的原因。因此，我觉得这句话的宾语应该换下。) which keeps the deer from following their age-old migration patterns across the frozen sea. The arguer cites reports from local hunters to support the conclusion, which only make opposing effects to prove how groundless the argument is.（我知道你想表达，那些报告只能给这篇Argument的论证起反面作用。但是你写出的那句话，翻译过来是：那些报告只能给证明这篇Argument多么无理由带来反面效果。双重否定等于肯定了。。）

To start with, the arguer’s assertion is （个人认为这里加个just会好些）based on the cited reports from local hunters with no more research background or further information about the researchers-the local hunters. We have no idea about the scientificity and reliability of this argument for none of us can figure out who those hunters are, how they can ensure the results is accurate, or whether their method of counting the deer populations is scientific or not. Without solving these problems, the arguer can not arbitrarily make any unreasonable allegations.

In addition, even though the arguer gives us a clear explanation of the scientificity of the local hunters’ reports, there still lie logical problems in the assertion. The arguer mentions that the reports from hunters coincide with recent global warming trends. However, it is difficult to find any （认为这里应该加个other 因为前面的同时发生就是一种relationship）possible relationship(-s) between the two parts. The hunters just report their discovery of the declining number of the deer while(我觉得这里用转折关系不太合适，你考虑一下) the global warming is one of the causes to the melting sea ice. The former is related to animals and the latter is in relation to the climate, so no automatic relationship can be found to support the argument. The arguer fails to further demonstrate the connection between them before making a cursory conclusion.

//我觉得这一段写的不是太好，一直在重复解释可能不存在这样的relationship，但却没有举出具体的可能性，使得他们不存在这种relationship。尤其是下划线部分，感觉虽然是论证但是就感觉好像是吧一件事情说过来倒过去。

What’ more, the arguer made（试试drew?） a conclusion from a coincidence, which can hardly convince readers of what he or she has asserted. The arguer employs the term “coincide with” to describe the relationship between the reports and global warming, disclosing his or her uncertainty which reveals the conclusion made behind is very unreasonable. Nevertheless(感觉这个词一用，前面叙述了很多这个relationship多么多么的不可靠，突然来了个“然而作者还是得到了看似精确的结论。”后面的部分就似乎成为你赞成的部分。我也不知道怎么表达，你看到了，我们再讨论一下。。), the arguer still draws a seemingly exact conclusion from those uncertain proofs.

Last but not least, despite all the problems mentioned above, when making conclusion, the arguer （unfairly）attributes the decrease in arctic deer populations to their disability of following their age-old migration patterns across the frozen sea caused by global warming without taking other possible factors into consideration, such as the increase in their natural enemy populations and the shortage of survival food, which can do harm to the deer’s saprophyte chain(这个我还真不懂什么意思呢，你是不是想表达生物链？biological chain?) leading them to death.

//这一段如果可以再论证的更加充分就好了

In sum, besides committing logical problems, the arguer fails to bring out solid evidence to attest the conclusion. To strengthen the force of proving the argument, it is advisable for the arguer to complement the cited reports made by the local hunters with more scientific methods and statistics. Furthermore, an all-sided consideration of the possible causes to the changing Arctic deer population will be appreciated to make the argument more reliable and considerate.

//这篇文章的逻辑性都很好。就是我个人认为有些论证不太好，或者不太充分。。总之改改就好了，以上修改也都是我的愚见。。因为我发现自己的文章也论证的不够充分。。。。:dizzy:

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

第二改——polo

In the argument, the arguer gives a breif introduction of the life habit and living habitat（不懂这两者的区别。） of arctic deer. Then based on the local hunters' reports that the deer populations are declining and global warming trends causing the sea ice to melt, the author makes a conclusion that the decline in arctic deer populations results from the influence on their migration pattern by melted sea ice. A careful examination（检查可以揭示这个结论的无理吗？我认为是检查出来的结果，也就是fallacies才是可以揭示的） of this argument can reveal how groundless the conclusion is.

As a threshold matter, the validity of the reports from local hunters deserves to be suspected. We have good reason to wonder whether they use the scientific methods to survey and evaluate the quantity of arctic deer. With the changes of environment, the living habit of arctic deer could produce（I think U used the wrong word，which means生产，创造。Did you wand to express the meaning of 发生？） changes.And these changes may make a difference on the battue of（by） hunters.By chance, the changes render these deer free from being killed by hunters.Then the hunters would say that the population of arctic deer has decreased.（We had already discussed this part.）

Secondly, the author just mentions that global warming trends result in the sea ice to melt（melt of the sea ice） and did(wrong tense) not provide the specific areas and time. Then there is a question that whether the areas involve arctic deer's habitat and the time covers the period of the deer's migration.(Try to change a declarative sentence into a interrogative sentence. ) Even if the global temperature increased, it could just be a small increment and if the deer's habitat can be relatively cold, the small increment cannot lead to melting(melt) of (the) sea ice.(We had already discussed this part) Then arctic deer's migration can escape from the influence(第一，你没有阐述这个influence是由什么带来的。第二， 我觉得这里用逃脱不好， 你可以直接说鹿的迁移习惯没有被影响就行了啊。).Aside from the above analysis, another question is related to time.As the argument referred that the migration just happens in some of the year  when it is cold eough and it does not continue through out（不要） the whole year.So in spite of the increase of temperature, there may exist a period that the temperature of the deer's habitat is low enough to counteract the increment and（我不认为这里前后是并列的关系，而是因果关系） the sea can freeze.

Last but not least, the arguer neglect the possible factors that contribute to the decline in arctic deer population, such as the environmental pollution, the excessive killing and so on. Since the arguer has failed to account for these possibilities, the claim that global warming trends is responsible to the decline in the quantity of arctic deer is completely  unwarranted.

//这一段的论述略显单薄。像那些possibility都是一笔带过。没有仔细去论证

In conclusion, the argument is not well reasoned. To make it logically acceptable, the arguer requires an authoritative report on the deer population.Besides, the details in regard to the effect from global warming on arctic deer's habitat is also needed.Then, the arguer should conduct a scientific and effective research on the factors influencing the arctic deer's population which should involve the referred factors above and the others.Only in this way can the argument be more convincing.

polosongruiUID: 2595436

1
---------这个时间点交作业！乌啦啦-------------------------

TOPIC: ARGUMENT45 - The following appeared as an editorial in a wildlife journal.

"Arctic deer live on islands in Canada's arctic region. They search for food by moving over ice from island to island during the course of a year. Their habitat is limited to areas warm enough to sustain the plants on which they feed, and cold enough, at least some of the year, for the ice to cover the sea separating the islands, allowing the deer to travel over it. Unfortunately, according to reports from local hunters, the deer populations are declining. Since these reports coincide with recent global warming trends that have caused the sea ice to melt, we can conclude that the decline in arctic deer populations is the result of deer being unable to follow their age-old migration patterns across the frozen sea."

WORDS: 455          TIME: 01:10:56          DATE: 2010/5/29 1:44:15

In the argument, the arguer gives a breif introduction of the life habit and living habitat of arctic deer. Then based on the local hunters' reports that the deer population are declining and global warming trends causing the sea ice to melt, the author make a conclusion that the decline in arctic deer populations result from the influence on their migtation pattern by melted sea ice. A careful examination of this argument can reveal how groundless the conclusion is.

As a threshold matter, the validity of the reports from local hunters deserves to be suspected. We have good reason to wonder whether they use the scientific methods to survey and evaluate the quantity of arctic deer. With the changes of environment, the living habit of arctic deer could produce changes.And these changes may make a difference on the hunters.By chance, the changes render these deer free from being killed by hunters.Then the hunters would say that the population of arctic deer has decreased.

Secondly, the author just mentioned that global warming trends result in the sea ice to melt and did not provide the specific areas and time. Then there is a question that whether the areas involve arctic deer's habitat and the time covers the period of the deer's migration. Even if the global temperature increased, it could just be a small increment and if the deer's habitat can be relatively cold, the small increment cannot lead ot melting of sea ice.Then arctic deer's migration can escape from the influence.Aside from the above analysis, another question is related to time.As the argument referred that the migration just happens in some of the year  when it is cold eough and it does not continue though out the whole year.So in spite of the increase of temperature, there may exist a period that the temperature of the deer's habitat is low enough to counteract the increment and the sea can freeze.

Last but not leatst, the arguer neglect the possible factors that contribute to the decline in arctic deer population, such as the environmental pollution, the excessive killing and so on. Since the arguer has failed to account for these possibilities, the claim that global warming trends is responsible to the decline in the quantity of arctic deer is completely  unwarranted.

In conclusion, the argument is not well reasoned. To make it logically acceptable, the arguer require a authoritative report on the deer population.Besides, the details inregard to the effect from global warming on arctic deer's habitat is also needed.Then, the arguer should conduct a scientific and effective research on the factors influencing the arctic deer's population which should involve the referred factors above and the others.Only in this way can the argument be more convincing.

------------------一自改 谢谢小谦 这次的小错误太多了！唉！------------------

In the argument, the arguer gives a breif introduction of the life habit and living habitat of arctic deer. Then based on the local hunters' reports that the deer populations are declining and global warming trends causing the sea ice to melt, the author makes a conclusion that the decline in arctic deer populations results from the influence on their migration pattern by melted sea ice. A careful examination of this argument can reveal how groundless the conclusion is.

As a threshold matter, the validity of the reports from local hunters deserves to be suspected. We have good reason to wonder whether they use the scientific methods to survey and evaluate the quantity of arctic deer. With the changes of environment, the living habit of arctic deer could produce changes.And these changes may make a difference on the battue of
hunters.By chance, the changes render these deer free from being killed by hunters.Then the hunters would say that the population of arctic deer has decreased.

Secondly, the author just mentions that global warming trends result in the sea ice to melt and did not provide the specific areas and time. Then there is a question that whether the areas involve arctic deer's habitat and the time covers the period of the deer's migration. Even if the global temperature increased, it could just be a small increment and if the deer's habitat can be relatively cold, the small increment cannot lead to melting of sea ice.Then arctic deer's migration can escape from the influence.Aside from the above analysis, another question is related to time.As the argument referred that the migration just happens in some of the year  when it is cold eough and it does not continue through out the whole year.So in spite of the increase of temperature, there may exist a period that the temperature of the deer's habitat is low enough to counteract the increment and the sea can freeze.

Last but not least, the arguer neglect the possible factors that contribute to the decline in arctic deer population, such as the environmental pollution, the excessive killing and so on. Since the arguer has failed to account for these possibilities, the claim that global warming trends is responsible to the decline in the quantity of arctic deer is completely  unwarranted.

In conclusion, the argument is not well reasoned. To make it logically acceptable, the arguer requires an authoritative report on the deer population.Besides, the details inregard to the effect from global warming on arctic deer's habitat is also needed.Then, the arguer should conduct a scientific and effective research on the factors influencing the arctic deer's population which should involve the referred factors above and the others.Only in this way can the argument be more convincing.

-------------二改 谢谢lty 在讨论中总共同进步，乌啦啦----------------

In the argument, the arguer gives a breif introduction of the living habit and habitat of arctic deer. Then based on the local hunters' reports that the deer populations are declining and global warming trends causing the sea ice to melt, the author makes a conclusion that the decline in arctic deer populations results from the influence on their migration pattern by melted sea ice. A careful analysis of this argument can reveal how groundless the conclusion is.

As a threshold matter, the validity of the reports from local hunters deserves to be suspected. We have good reason to wonder whether they use the scientific methods to survey and evaluate the quantity of arctic deer. With the changes of environment, the living habit of arctic deer could produce changes. If the deer's activity time changes and the hunters go hunting at the original time,  these deer will be free from being killed by hunters.Then the hunters would say that the population of arctic deer has decreased.

Secondly, the author just mentions that global warming trends result in the sea ice to melt and did not provide the specific areas and time. Do the areas involve arctic deer's habitat? Do the time covers the period of the deer's migration? Even if the global temperature increased, it could just be a small increment and if the deer's habitat can be considerably cold, the small increment cannot lead to melting of sea ice. Then arctic deer's migration can escape from the influence and proceed as normal. Aside from the above analysis, another question is related to time.As the argument refers that the migration just happens in some of the year when it is cold eough and it does not continue through the whole year.So in spite of the increase of temperature, there may exist a period that the temperature of the deer's habitat is low enough to counteract the increment so that the sea can freeze.

Last but not least, the arguer neglect the possible factors that contribute to the decline in arctic deer population, such as the environmental pollution, the excessive killing and so on. The pollution will bring much toxic substance, which could render the specific food, which the arctic deer feed on, to be poisonous; it will cause a fatal danger to the deer. Since the arguer has failed to account for these possibilities, the claim that global warming trends is responsible to the decline in the quantity of arctic deer is completely unwarranted.

In conclusion, the argument is not well reasoned. To make it logically acceptable, the arguer requires an authoritative report on the deer population.Besides, the details inregard to the effect from global warming on arctic deer's habitat is also needed.Then, the arguer should conduct a scientific and effective research on the factors influencing the arctic deer's population which should involve the referred factors above and the others.Only in this way can the argument be more convincing.

polosongruiUID: 2595436

2
-------------------一改lty--------------------------------

At my first glance, the argument presented above seemed to be sound. However after I have looked into it, I find that there are some fallacies. In this argument, to support his/her conclusion, the author cites the suspect reports which was made by local hunters, and the ongoing global warming trends are simultaneous with these reports, which makeshaunted him(or her) incorrectly believe it is the reason causing the melt of sea ice.(全球变暖造成海冰融化，这个应该没有incorret吧,Incorrect的应该是全球变暖造成的海冰融化影响到deer的migration然后导致种群下降）

In the first place, their is no precise figure to convince the reader of the decline of（换成in吧） the arctic deer populations. The author has cited the reports from local hunters, which cannot be the convincing reports. Local hunters are the people who want to hunt animals in exchange for money, whereupon it is very likely that they issue these reports to cover up the crime they have made. Moreover, the local hunters' home range is restricted to a certain district. It is extremely possible that their reports are based on a limited statistic. Besides, according to the reports, it is deers but not arctic deers populations are decreasing, which means arctic deers population may be maintained or even increacing(inceasing). Hence, unless the arguer quote a survey from professional bodies, his/her assertion that the population of arctic deers has reduced is questionable.

Secondly, the arguer unfairly claims that global warming trends melt the sea ice. Global warming mentioned in the argument may just be the begining of these trends, during which, the temperature is not hot enough to melt the sea ice. (我觉得全球变暖造成海冰融化这是个可认可的事实，至少这样的现象在某些地区是一定存在，作者的疏漏应该在于他没有说arctic deer的habitat那块地方有没有受影响)Even if the sea ice can be melted, it is possible that the sea ice where arctic deers settled was not melted. Therefore, it is necessary for the author to establish a reasonable casual relationship between the melt and the global warming trends.

Last, but not least, assuming that there is a decline in arctic deers population and the global warming melt the sea ice where they inhabited, we are not convinced by the author's unfair conclusion that the decline is caused by their being incapable to follow the arctic deers age-old migration ways. There are many reasons that can also lead to their death. For example, the industrial pollution which has extended to Canada's arctic region, the damage of biological chain, the battue of these animals and so on.

To sum up, everything has lots of possibility. Thus, to make the conclusion more reliable, the author needs to refer to the professional institutions and provide a more credible report. Moreover, it is essential for him/her to reorganize this argument according to the problems I mentioned above.

//整体结构清楚，思路清晰。就是对于这一点“全球变暖造成海冰融化”，我觉得这是个事实，没必要攻击。这个我们可以讨论一下，我觉得题目中的问题，在于海冰融化的地点是不是也影响到deer的栖息地，然后即使影响了，deer也只是在一年中的some time 才migration，海冰融化应该还没到一年四季都不结冰的地步，那这个migration还是可以进行的。

--------------------二改 小谦------------------

In this argument, based on an unreasonable deduction the author concluded that due to blocking of arctic deer’s traditional way of migration their populations are decreasing. To substantiate the author’s argument, he/she cited doubtful reports from local hunters and assertively set a cause and effect relationship between global warming and deer’ down-regulating population. Although this argument seems to be true in the first sight, a scrutiny shows that it suffers several defects.

Firstly, the reports from local hunters are suspicious. On one hand, hunters may hide truth because they are the killers of deer. It is possible that deer are less because local hunters have killed too much. They could hide killing too much deer by telling people that the number of deer is reduced for some other reasons. On the other hand, the argument did not offer the number and percentage of hunters who held this opinion. What about the other hunters and even other citizens. Even assuming the hunters did not lie and most of local hunters held this opinion, we could not conclude that deer become less. The author said that deer migrates from one place to another place, thus the oral testimonies from one local could not support the whole population of deer is less. Deer might live in other places of the world that local hunters do not know.

//就report展开讨论，很深入，学习了！

Another reasonable doubt is whether or not deer’s roads are clogged by global warming.
None of the evidence showing global warming melts large amount of ice in arctic was presented. (我觉得这句最好用there be 吧，要不感觉头重脚轻的)Although it is possible that global warming trends resulted（result） in the sea ice to melt, does it have great destructive to melt the entire ice one(on) deer’s road? As the argument said that it is recently that global warming has happened, it should not have the time cumulative effect to reduce deer’s population. //我觉得这一段可以再详细一些，例如就地点的问题，在提出那个反问句后再说一下可能没有影响deer migration的road，对于时间的问题,可以再提及一下题目指出的migration只是some of the year.

Lastly the author failed to rule out other factors which result reducing populations of arctic deer. Again hunters could reduce the amount of deer. Pollutions could poison deer(觉得这句话这么说很生硬，可以换个长点的句子---Pollutions could bring some toxic substance，which will do great harm to the deer). No food could cause the deer to die. Since deer feed on a special food, some factors could result in the dying out of the plants. (这个位置的论述也不是很流畅，我觉得这样说比较好.Besides, some factors can lead to the great decrease of the special food, which the arctic deer feed on.Then the population of  the deer would reduce for lack of food.)Without ruling out these possibilities, we could not conclude that global warming result in down going of deer population.

All in all, the author needs offer more scientific data of the population change of the arctic deer, and strong evidence of the cause and effect relationship between global warming and reducing deer. Without concerning about the defects that I have stated above, the author’s conclusion is unbelievable.

//整体不错，提了点小意见，看一下啊。有异议的地方我们讨论，乌啦啦！

agnes2010UID: 2794922

The editorial assumes that the decline in arctic deer populations is caused by the melting sea ice which keeps the deer from following their age-old migration patterns across the frozen sea. The arguer cites reports from local hunters to support the conclusion, which only make opposing effects to prove how groundless the argument is.

To start with, the arguer’s assertion is based on the cited reports from local hunters with no more research background or further information about the researchers-the local hunters. We have no idea about the scientificity and reliability of this argument for none of us can figure out who those hunters are, how they can ensure the results is accurate, or whether their method of counting the deer populations is scientific or not. Without solving these problems, the arguer can not arbitrarily make any unreasonable allegations.

In addition, even though the arguer gives us a clear explanation of the scientificity of the local hunters’ reports, there still lie logical problems in the assertion. The arguer mentions that the reports from hunters coincide with recent global warming trends. However, it is difficult to find any possible relationship between the two parts. The hunters just report their discovery of the declining number of the deer while the global warming is one of the causes to the melting sea ice. The former is related to animals and the latter is in relation to the climate, so no automatic relationship can be found to support the argument. The arguer fails to further demonstrate the connection between them before making a cursory conclusion.

What’ more, the arguer made a conclusion from a coincidence, which can hardly convince readers of what he or she has asserted. The arguer employs the term “coincide with” to describe the relationship between the reports and global warming, disclosing his or her uncertainty which reveals the conclusion made behind is very unreasonable. Nevertheless, the arguer still draws a seemingly exact conclusion from those uncertain proofs.

Last but not least, despite all the problems mentioned above, when making conclusion, the arguer attributes the decrease in arctic deer populations to their disability of following their age-old migration patterns across the frozen sea caused by global warming without taking other possible factors into consideration, such as the increase in their natural enemy populations and the shortage of survival food, which can do harm to the deer’s saprophyte chain leading them to death.

In sum, besides committing logical problems, the arguer fails to bring out solid evidence to attest the conclusion. To strengthen the force of proving the argument, it is advisable for the arguer to complement the cited reports made by the local hunters with more scientific methods and statistics. Furthermore, an all-sided consideration of the possible causes to the changing Arctic deer population will be appreciated to make the argument more reliable and considerate.

=====================================================

自改一：

谢谢Ity的改文~ 发现自己在论证上真的有许多问题~

做了点修改...不过感觉还是问题多多！

The editorial assumes that the decline in arctic deer populations is the result of deer being unable to follow their age-old migration patterns across the frozen sea. The arguer cites reports from local hunters to support the conclusion, which only make opposing effects to prove its argument.

To start with, the arguer’s assertion is just based on the cited reports from local hunters with no more research background or further information about the researchers-the local hunters. We have no idea about the scientificity and reliability of this argument for none of us can figure out who those hunters are, how they can ensure the results is accurate, or whether their method of counting the deer populations is scientific or not. Without solving these problems, the arguer can not arbitrarily make any unreasonable allegations.

In addition, even though the arguer gives us a clear explanation of the scientificity of the local hunters’ reports, there still lie logical problems in the assertion. The arguer mentions that the reports from hunters coincide with recent global warming trends. However, The reports is related to animals and global warming trends is in relation to the climate, so no automatic relationship can be found to support the argument. What’s more, there is no evidence to prove that recent global warming trends directly lead to the decline in deer. Then, how can the arguer easily assert the coincidence lying between the reports and global warming trends? The arguer fails to further demonstrate the connection between them before making a cursory conclusion.

What’s more, the arguer drew a conclusion from a coincidence, which can hardly convince readers of what he or she has asserted. The arguer employs the term “coincide with” to describe the relationship between the reports and global warming, disclosing his or her uncertainty which reveals the conclusion made behind is very unreasonable. Despite the uncertainty, the arguer still draws a seemingly exact conclusion from those uncertain proofs.

Last but not least, despite all the problems mentioned above, when making conclusion, the arguer unfairly attributes the decrease in arctic deer populations to their disability of following their age-old migration patterns across the frozen sea caused by global warming without taking other possible factors into consideration, such as the increase in their natural enemy populations and the shortage of survival food, all of which can do harm to the deer’s biological chain leading them to death. As a result, considering their migration alone can not comprehensively explain the declining number of the arctic deer.

In sum, besides committing logical problems, the arguer fails to bring out solid evidence to attest the conclusion. To strengthen the force of proving the argument, it is advisable for the arguer to complement the cited reports made by the local hunters with more scientific methods and statistics. Furthermore, an all-sided consideration of the possible causes to the changing Arctic deer population will be appreciated to make the argument more reliable and considerate.

agnes2010UID: 2794922

今天忙里偷闲~先来改改已经写好文章的小凝~
改小凝———————————————————————————————————————————————————————

In this analysis, the arguer claims that global warming results in the declining number of arctic deer, which comes from the statistics of local hunters. The conclusion is rather plausible on the surface【学习~】, for the sea ice plays such a key role in arctic deer’s life. Once it’s destroyed, it will cause great danger to their existence. 【这里巧妙地叙述了题目的背景~恰恰就是我忽略的一部分....】However, the argument is fraught with vague, oversimplified and unwarranted assumptions.【继续学习】

Firstly, where the latest number of arctic deer comes from is not convincing. In the argument, we find that the number is reported from the local hunters, who have such limited facilities and equipments to get overall statistic. After all, the area of arctic is so large that it is impossible for the local hunters to rush over the entire place to count the number at the same time. Obviously, if we want a more precise statistic, we’d better turn to specific statistical organ for help.
【打猎者受客观因素的约束，其报告没有说服力，应转向专业机构寻求帮助】

Secondly, the arguer fails to show us whether the ice on arctic has melt due to the recent global warming. Granted, it is undeniable that as global temperature increases, the sea ice melts a lot, swallowing the living environment of various kinds of animals that rely heavily on the sea ice. However, the arguer shows little about whether the arctic is affected by such temperature changes, let alone mentions【let alone 后面应该是加原形吧~】 whether it does influence the living place of arctic deer directly. What’s more, the arctic deer do not have a strict requirement that the sea ice should keep for a long period. They only need it in some of the year. Thus, even though the global warming may reduce the sea ice on Arctic, once the amount of the ice remains steady when arctic deer need, it does not matter a lot.
【没有说明温室效应和冰融化相关，也没有证明鹿需要冰的时候冰量少】

Thirdly, from the argument, suppose that the deer did decline【这里不能直接说decline，decline的是数量~】, there lacks some evidence to prove the relationship between the downtrend of the population and their unable to【这里的unable也不对啦~建议disability of doing sth.】follow their age-old migration patterns across the frozen sea. Though in history, many species extinct due to the change of living environment, there are still many factors that play a part in it, such as overhunting, nature disasters, food scarce and the like. However, in this argument, the author only draws the conclusion by coincidence of the unsupported declining number of arctic deer and the recent global warming trends. Obviously, from this angle, it’s not so convincing.
【数量下降的原因不全面】

In summary, the conclusion reached in this argument is invalid and misleading. Before we accept the conclusion, the arguer must adopt a more precise number of the population of arctic deer. To solidify the argument, the arguer would have to cite more results of research concerning the relationship between the population of arctic deer and the melt of ice due to global warming.

总结：小凝的文章还是一贯的结构清晰，语言丰富。今天学到了很多，尤其是小凝在文章中多次从argu本身给出的鹿的背景进行分析，感觉更有说服力。之前我就一直不明白为什么argu中要给出那么多的背景资料式的文字，现在终于顿悟了~看来以后读题一定要认真踏实地一点一点读~
整篇文章都在学习哦~


==========================================================================

改Frances———————————————————————————————————————————————————————

In the essay above, the author makes a causal【casual】 relationship with the decline of Arctic deer population to the recent global warming trends【Frances~这里relationship的介词是不是有问题啊？我感觉是relationship between A and B.还是你这边的用法也行呢？另外，casual relationship是不是一个固定的用法啊？我查了一下好像多指人与人之间的临时关系，但是我改作文的时候经常发现有队员用~希望得到解答~】. The main reason he/she insists on is that the rising of temperature made the ice melt which prohibit those Arctic deer to follow the path to find food which is their way of living from ancient till now【学习！】.

Firstly, the evidence that the author provides is insufficient to support the conclusion that the rising temperature hinder the migration of the Arctic deer. A concrete geographic position for the habitation of Arctic deer is vaguely stated in the passage which is a key proof to this line of reasoning. Without this detail, we cannot assert that global warming make a directly threaten to the place which Arctic deer activate. What about those deer live in a southern part of the Arctic Circle which is not so much influenced by global warming?【这一句最好再具体一些，你怎么知道南方的鹿受温室效应的影响会小呢？在这里解释一下吧~】
【没有给出鹿栖息地的具体介绍，无法证明受到温室效应的影响的程度】

Secondly, there is little evidence through the passage to prove that the prohibition of the migration of Arctic deer will destroy the food resources for those deer which caused their death. It is said in the front of the passage that Arctic deer only travel around for food in some time of the year, but not the whole year. In summer days, when the weather is warm enough for the plants grow in this area, Arctic deer may have a relatively stable food resources. Whether to take a migration or not will not be a key issue for their living. If the decline of Arctic deer happens in the warm days of the year, The conclusion that breaking the old way of migration result in the number decline of the group is unwarranted.
【没有证据表明鹿的迁徙会破坏它们的食物来源】论证非常清晰！学习！

Thirdly, Whether the lack of food makes the decline of Arctic deer population is still doubtful. There may be other reasons that the author did not notice. What if those hunter take too much hunt on Arctic deer recently? Or there are some other wild beasts emerges in this area which lives on Arctic deer? All of these factors are supposed to be considered for the conclusion.
【可能还有其他原因造成鹿数量的减少】

Last but not least, there are still doubtful points which is not liable in the statement. Is it the real truth that the number of Arctic deer decline, which is reported from local hunters, how did they get this statistics? Is there any possibilities that any statistical mistakes made by them for their unprofessional identities?
【打猎者的报告本身难有说服力】frances很擅长用提问~
To sum up, The author commits logic flaws in the given argument. To make the passage more convincing, the author should provide further evidences to show the logical relationship between those materials.

总结：
Frances的思路很清晰~整篇文章我都在学习~
最大的感受就是Frances运用提问句，感觉论的力度很强，不过如果能再加搭配上一点句总结的话，感觉就更协调了~个人建议啦~


=================================================

改Ity——————————————————————————————————

At my first glance, the argument presented above seemed to be sound. However after I have looked into it, I find 【如果前面要用过去完成时的话，这里应该就用过去时吧】that there are some fallacies【a misconception resulting from incorrect reasoning,学习！】. In this argument, to support his/her conclusion, the author cites the suspect reports which was made by local hunters, and the ongoing global warming trends are simultaneous with these reports, which makes him/her incorrectly believe it is the reason causing the melt of sea ice where arctic deers live and that changed their habits in migration.

In the first place, their is no precise figure to convince the reader of the decline in the arctic deer populations. The author has cited the reports from local hunters, which cannot be the convincing reports. Local hunters are the people who want to hunt animals in exchange for money, whereupon it is very likely that they issue these reports to cover up the crime they have made. Moreover, the local hunters' home range is restricted to a certain district. It is extremely possible that their reports are based on a limited statistic. Besides, according to the reports, it is deers but not arctic deers populations are decreasing, which means arctic deers population may be maintained or even increasing. Hence, unless the arguer quote a survey from professional bodies, his/her assertion that the population of arctic deers has reduced is questionable.
【打猎者的报告不具说服性 Ity把可能性分析的很充分~角度也很新颖 学习！】

Secondly, the arguer unfairly implies that global warming trends melt the habitat of arctic deers. Global warming mentioned in the argument may just be the begining of these trends, during which period, the temperature is not high enough to melt the sea ice in the Arctic Ocean. Even if the sea ice can be melted, it is possible that the sea ice where arctic deers settled was not melted. Therefore, it is necessary for the author to establish a reasonable casual relation ship【causual relationship】 between the melt and the global warming trends.
【没有证明温室效应会融化鹿的栖息地】

Last, but not least, assuming that there is a decline in arctic deers population and the global warming melt the sea ice where they inhabited, we are not convinced by the author's unfair conclusion that the decline is caused by their being incapable to follow the arctic deers age-old migration ways. There are many reasons that can also lead to their death. For example, the industrial pollution which has extended to Canada's arctic region, the damage of biological chain, the battue of these animals and so on.
【鹿数量的下降还有别的原因】

To sum up, everything has lots of possibility. Thus, to make the conclusion more reliable, the author needs to refer to the professional institutions and provide a more credible report. Moreover, it is essential for him/her to reorganize this argument according to the problems I mentioned above.

总结：
Ity的文章结构很清晰呢~即使是和大家的观点一样，但是论证的角度却很新颖！值得学习啊~~

凝羽欲翔UID: 2733350

Revision for Frances~

Revision for mistakes
Good Sentences to Learn
Comments

In the essay above, the author makes a causal relationship with the decline of Arctic deer population to the recent global warming trends. The main reason he/she insists on is that the rising of temperature made the ice melt which prohibit those Arctic deer to follow the path to find food which is their way of living from ancient till now.

Firstly, the evidence that the author provides is insufficient to support the conclusion that the rising temperature hinder the migration of the Arctic deer. A concrete geographic position for the habitation of Arctic deer is vaguely stated in the passage which is a key proof to this line of reasoning(a very good sentence~). Without this detail, we cannot assert that global warming make a directly threaten to the place which Arctic deer activate. What about those deer live in a southern part of the Arctic Circle which is not so much influenced by global warming?(How do you know that the southern part of Arctic Circle is not so much influenced by global warming? It may lack some evidence~)

Secondly, there is little evidence through the passage to prove that the prohibition of the migration of Arctic deer will destroy the food resources for those deer which caused their death. It is said in the front of the passage that Arctic deer only travel around for food in some time of the year, but not the whole year. In summer days, when the weather is warm enough for the plants grow in this area, Arctic deer may have a relatively stable food resources. Whether to take a migration or not will not be a key issue for their living. If the decline of Arctic deer happens in the warm days of the year, The conclusion that breaking the old way of migration result in the number decline of the group is unwarranted.（In the argument, I think, the author mainly focuses on the relationship between the population decline and the being unable to follow their age-old migration patterns across the frozen sea, while he/she doesn't mention that the prohibition of the migration destroy the food resources that cause their decline.）

Thirdly, Whether the lack of food makes the decline of Arctic deer population is still doubtful. There may be other reasons that the author did not notice. What if those hunter take too much hunt on Arctic deer recently? Or there are some other wild beasts emerges in this area which lives on Arctic deer? All of these factors are supposed to be considered for the conclusion.

Last but not least, there are still doubtful points which is not liable in the statement. Is it the real truth that the number of Arctic deer decline, which is reported from local hunters, how did they get this statistics? Is there any possibilities that any statistical mistakes made by them for their unprofessional identities?

To sum up, The author commits logic flaws in the given argument. To make the passage more convincing, the author should provide further evidences to show the logical relationship between those materials.