【10G10hawk】7月26日作业——argument207

谦行天下UID: 2797557

今天是新成立的小组的第一次作业，大家加油！

作业题是：
TOPIC: ARGUMENT207 - It is known that in recent years, industrial pollution has caused the Earth's ozone layer to thin, allowing an increase in the amount of ultraviolet radiation that reaches the Earth's surface. At the same time, scientists have discovered, the population of a species of salamander that lays its eggs in mountain lakes has declined. Since ultraviolet radiation is known to be damaging to delicate tissues and since salamander eggs have no protective shells, it must be the case that the increase in ultraviolet radiation has damaged many salamander eggs and prevented them from hatching. This process will no doubt cause population declines in other species, just as it has in the salamander species.

请大家于26日晚上11点之前上交文章。

第一次互改顺序为：- 表示后改前
1-3-4-5-6-7-8-9-10-11-14

第二次互改顺序为：
3-1-4-6-5-7-9-8-14-11-10

补充作业：26日晚BS（在QQ群内）的issue题为：

69"Government should place few, if any, restrictions on scientific research and development"

请大家将自己issue69的提纲和问题贴到帖子上：
https://bbs.gter.net/forum.php?mod=viewthread&tid=1126976&extra

谦行天下UID: 2797557

In this argument, the author asserts that due to increasing in the amount of ultraviolet (UV) radiation, many salamander (SAL) eggs are damaged. The population of the SAL species has declined because the eggs couldn’t hatch and this process can also cause the declination of other species. In my point of view, this argument suffers from several fallacies.

Firstly, the author fails to support his/her idea about the increased UV radiation could damage the SAL eggs. As we all know, UV light exists when the ozone layer hasn’t damaged. Although UV light can damage delicate tissues, there must be a threshold in the amount that UV radiation damages the SAL eggs. I doubt whether the amount of UV radiation has reached the threshold. In addition, water where the eggs are laid in can reflect certain amount of UV light and thus protect the eggs to some extent. Hence, evidence about UV radiation is damaging the SAL eggs in the water now must be provided, otherwise, the author’s statement is untenable.

Further more, the arguer fails to take into account other possible factors which might explain the decrease of the SAL population. There are a variety of possible reasons that contribute to declining SAL population. Perhaps, the water population in the lake is getting worse in resent years. The chemicals polluted the mountain lakes are highly toxic to SAL eggs. Perhaps a serious infectious disease is widely spread among the SAL species in recent years. Or perhaps the population of SAL’s predators is soaring up in recent years. Or, same environmental and climatic changes result in famishing of SAL. Without ruling out other possibilities, the author cannot unjustifiable ascribe the decreasing population of SAL to UV radiation.


Last, even if there is a relationship between UV radiation and the declining population of SAL, it is still open to doubt whether the same phenomenon will spread to other species. Not every species’ eggs have no protective shells and not every species lay eggs. It is headlong to assert that the same process will happen in other species. Other species eggs may be protected from the UV radiation. Because animals use different ways to have offspring like mammals have babies, other species may survive from the damage of UV radiation.

All together, to substantiate the author’s assertion that increasing amount of UV radiation lead to declining population of SAL, evidence that UV radiation causes damage to SAL’s eggs must be provided. By ruling out all the other possibilities that may decrease the population of SAL, the author can declare his/her conclusion in this argument. But, the process of SAL can not apply to other species without conditions.

===============第一次自改文=========================
to 晓航：我没有准备过模板耶！你改文章的时候说得好泛泛~~我没怎么改！
In this argument, the author asserts that due to increasing in the amount of ultraviolet (UV) radiation, many salamander (SAL) eggs are damaged. The population of the SAL species has declined because the eggs couldn’t hatch and this process can also cause the declination of other species. In my point of view, this argument suffers from several fallacies.


Firstly, the author fails to support his/her idea about the increased UV radiation could damage the SAL eggs. As we all know, UV light exists when the ozone layer hasn’t damaged. Although UV light can damage delicate tissues, there must be a threshold in the amount that UV radiation damages the SAL eggs. I doubt whether the amount of UV radiation has reached the threshold. In addition, water where the eggs are laid in can reflect certain amount of UV light and thus protect the eggs to some extent. Hence, evidence about UV radiation is damaging the SAL eggs in the water now must be provided, otherwise, the author’s statement is untenable.

Further more, the arguer fails to take into account other possible factors which might explain the decrease of the SAL population. Perhaps, the water pollution in the lake is getting worse in resent years. The chemicals polluted the mountain lakes are extremely toxic to SAL eggs. Perhaps a serious infectious disease is widely spread among the SAL species in recent years. Or perhaps the population of SAL’s predators is soaring up in recent years. Or, same environmental and climatic changes result in famishing of SAL. Without ruling out other possibilities, the author cannot unjustifiable ascribe the decreasing population of SAL to UV radiation.

Last, even if there is a relationship between UV radiation and the declining population of SAL, it is still open to doubt whether the same phenomenon will spread to other species. Not every species’ eggs have no protective shells and not every species lay eggs. It is headlong to assert that the same process will happen in other species. Other species eggs may be protected from the UV radiation. Because animals use different ways to have offspring like mammals have babies, other species may survive from the damage of UV radiation.

All together, to substantiate the author’s assertion that increasing amount of UV radiation lead to declining population of SAL, evidence that UV radiation causes damage to SAL’s eggs must be provided. By ruling out all the other possibilities that may decrease the population of SAL, the author can declare his/her conclusion in this argument. But, the process of SAL can not apply to other species without conditions.

====================第二次自改文==================
谢Anges
In this argument, the author asserts that due to the increase in the amount of ultraviolet (UV) radiation, many salamander (SAL) eggs are damaged. The population of the SAL species has declined because the eggs couldn’t hatch and this process can also cause the declination of other species. In my point of view, this argument suffers from several fallacies.

Firstly, the author fails to support his/her idea about the increased UV radiation could damage the SAL eggs. As we all know, UV light exists in the spaces. The ozone layer could reduce a proportion amount of UV which reaches the earth. The organisms are exposed to certain amount of UV radiation even when the ozone layer hasn’t damaged. Although UV light can damage delicate tissues, there must be a threshold in the amount that UV radiation damages the SAL eggs. I doubt whether the amount of UV radiation has reached the threshold. In addition, water where the eggs are laid in can reflect certain amount of UV light and thus the water can protect the eggs to some extent. Hence, evidence about UV radiation is damaging the SAL eggs in the water now must be provided, otherwise, the author’s statement is untenable.

Further more, the arguer fails to take into account other possible factors which might explain the decrease in the SAL population. Perhaps, the water pollution in the lake is getting worse in resent years. The chemicals in the pollutant are extremely toxic to SAL eggs. Perhaps a serious infectious disease is widely spread among the SAL species in recent years. Or perhaps the population of SAL’s predators is soaring up in recent years. Or, same environmental and climatic changes result in famishing of SAL. Without ruling out other possibilities, the author cannot unjustifiable ascribe the decreasing population of SAL to UV radiation.

Last, even if there is a relationship between UV radiation and the declining population of SAL, it is still open to doubt whether the same phenomenon will spread to other species. Not every species’ eggs have non-protective shells[To Anges, 这里我也不知道怎么改] and not every species lay eggs. It is headlong to assert that the same process will happen in other species. Other species eggs may be protected from the UV radiation. Because animals use different ways to have offspring like mammals have babies, other species may survive from the damage of UV radiation.

All together, to substantiate the author’s assertion that increasing amount of UV radiation lead to declining population of SAL, evidence that UV radiation causes damage to SAL’s eggs must be provided. By ruling out all the other possibilities that may decrease the population of SAL, the author can declare his/her conclusion in this argument. But, the process of SAL can not apply to other species without conditions.

谦行天下UID: 2797557

改14 lytmoon

Wrong
New words to me
Good Expression
My comment and Questions

In the speaker's assertation, he or she points out that the production of eggs of a special salamander declined[题目中的原文是“the population of a species of salamander （that lays its eggs in mountain lakes） has declined.括号里修饰salamander，所以此句的意思并不是说eggs declined，而是说火蜥蜴的数量减少了，这种火蜥蜴在山湖里产蛋 ”] because of the ultraviolet radiation. And to take a step further, the speaker asserts that declines in other species will also happen resulting from more ultraviolet. The statement seems to be justified at first glance, however, when I take a look【感觉有点问题，take a close look into it.我想作者换一个更地道的说法应该不难吧】 into it, I find it is partial rather than reasonable.

First, the speaker just claims that when the Earth's ozene layer gets thinner, more ultraviolet radiation will reaches the Earth's surface. The conclusion doesn't provide any statics and proofs, and as a result is arbitrary. Maybe the Earth's ozene layer will help prevent the ultraviolet from reaching the Earth and so that the amount of the later becomes small rather than large.
题目中说得这点好像是公认的诶，即臭氧层变薄导致紫外线变多，我认为你辩驳这点不是很妥当。不知道你是怎么想的？

Moreover, even if the amout of the radiation has risen, it is still considerate for us to think it over. The speaker makes is resolute by decaliming【？】 that the radiation is harmful to the eggs. It is the stactics that talk. Without them, we may as well believe the radiation benefits for the eggs and the falling in the number is just the outcoming of other factors, such as the temperature, the destiny and so on.我觉得这里可以展开成句子说。

Besides, the speaker mistakes the relationship between the decline in the eggs and the increase in the radiation. Even if it is admitted that they happen at the same moment, the proof is not enough to say that the there exists a causal relationship between the two. Perhaps the two events are just coincidences.

Then, if the radiation should be blame for the reduction in this special salamander's eggs【这句的问题我同本文开头指出】, should it be true that other species will be influenced?

It is probably that the radition will contribute【这个词倒不是很妥当，充其量是not damage to】 the eggs of other species. Or the eggs of  other species have protective shells and prevent themselves against the radiation. Or the species' habitats are so different and far awy from the salamander and the radiation there is not so much as that in the salamander's habitats.
这段说服力很强！
In a word, it is unjustified for the speaker to blame the radiation for the reduce in the production of one special species and which makes the situation worse is that the speaker just make an unreasonable prediction that there will be a falling in other species. To provide[substantiate] his or her opinion, the speaker needs further more information and should think it over when it comes to a conclusion.


======================分割线==========================
改晓航的一改文：
Wrong
New words to me
Good Expression
My comment and Questions

The author concludes that all species' populations are reduced by the thinner ozone layer just because the declining of salamander in mountain lakes and its none-shell eggs. In his[his/her] logical chain, there are several mistakes; unless solving them we could not[应该倒装couldn't we, 或者说：until solving them could we] agree with author's conclusion.
这个开头总结得很到位！
First, it's true that Earth's ozone layer is being thinner, but whether it's the cause for the decreasing of the population of salamander is not clear. The causation between these two facts is open to doubt. In general, the competition between species is always one of the main causes which leads to species' population declining.应加述原因才更有说服力！不然，我想问，为何？我不大赞同 What's more, man's actions such as pollution in water or air, killing them for food and so forth can[may] also be the causes. The fact that salamander's eggs are without protective shells is not a directly proof to their death causing by ultraviolet radiation. In lakes, water could reflex[词性不对，该词仅做名词和形容词，应改为reflect] and absorb part of ultraviolet radiation and as I know the ratio of the absorption by water is not low. 这里感觉没有分析透彻，应加一句“eggs由于在水里受到保护避免UV radiation的伤害”这样才使作者的意思清楚明了。Therefore, to conclude salamander's decreasing attribute to the thinner ozone layer author should give us more analysis and data directly proved[to prove. 因为是give us sth to do sth] this conclusion.

For his second logical mistake, many salamander eggs death is not equal to their population's declining, is easily to be refuted. Everybody knows some species always lay more eggs then they need to assure that after these eggs’ death by many reasons they still have enough eggs to keep their normal breeding [Good point!]and their species from the danger to be extinct. For instance, fishes and turtles are the representative species mentioned above. If author provides data about whether salamander’s way of breeding is similar to fishes and turtles’, it may contribute to achieving his logical chain.
我没有想到这点~~这是自然界的规律~~学习学习！
【另】晓航，你每次作文里面都有很多单词是连在一起的~~好像是你粘贴出问题了~~或是咋的~我几次看你作文都发现这种情况~~

Finally, there is no reason to hastily generalize that other species' population decreasing, if the decreasing exists, is caused by thinner ozone layer or to say its industrial pollution. Every species have its own way to reproduce and salamander may not be the sample whose reproducing way most representative and have the most similarity to other species’. As the differences between species’ way of reproduction such as other species’ eggs with shell and mammalianviviparous【这个单词我不知道怎么帮你分了】 one the generalization are hasty, weak and unwarranted. In short,lacking evidence that salamander’s breeding way is the most typical one theauthor cannot convince me to his conclusion.

In sum, theauthor's evidence accomplishes little toward supporting his argument forspecies' population declining. To further bolster his conclusion the authormust provide better evidence, perhaps the causation between the declining andultraviolet radiation and the reason why he could generalization thisphenomenon to other species. With those evidences author's conclusion have morereliability to the readers.
学习了一下你的结尾
总体来说是篇不错的文章~~晓航你下次贴上来的时候把那些连在一起的词处理一下。。。减少改作文的人的工作量撒~~

finalleUID: 2812504

TOPIC: ARGUMENT207 - It is known that in recent years, industrial pollution has caused the Earth's ozone layer to thin, allowing an increase in the amount of ultraviolet radiation that reaches the Earth's surface. At the same time, scientists have discovered, the population of a species of salamander that lays its eggs in mountain lakes has declined. Since ultraviolet radiation is known to be damaging to delicate tissues and since salamander eggs have no protective shells, it must be the case that the increase in ultraviolet radiation has damaged many salamander eggs and prevented them from hatching. This process will no doubt cause population declines in other species, just as it has in the salamander species.
WORDS: 544          TIME: 01:15:23          DATE: 2010/7/26 21:23:23
  In this argument, the arguer concludes that industrial pollution will cause the  population declines in other species, just as the population of a species of salamander that lays its eggs in moutain lakes has declined. To support this conclusion,the arguer points out that with the Earth's ozone layer to thin, there is an increase in the amount of ultraviolet radiation that reaches the Earth's surface. In addition, the arguer reasons that  because the increase in ultraviolet radiation has damaged many salamander eggs and prevented them from hatching. This argument suffers from several critical fallacies.
  First, the argument is based on a false analogy. The arguer simply assumes that the species of salamander that lays its eggs in mountain lakes has declined for salamander eggs have no protective shells, but he does not provede any evidence that they have direct relations. As we know, the fall in the population of the salamander may have many reasons, such as man killed the adult salamander and the man-made environment changes. Also, It is true that the degeneration characteristic of mountain lakes environment influenced by natural and human being are atrophy of wetland area, the water resource decrease, and ecological environment gets worse. Therefore, even though the industrial pollution has something to do with the decreasing of the population of the salamander, there is no guarantee that it kills the salamander eggs and prevents them from hatching.
  Second, the arguer commits a fallacy of hasty generalization. Even if ultraviolet radiation is known to be damaging to delicate tissues and salamander eggs have no protective shells, the arguer offers no evidence to substantiate this crucial assumption. It is very likely that the effects of ultraviolet radiation are not bad enough to keep salamander eggs from hatching, maybe they will just have some diseases. According to scientists, they have not give the findings about that the number of hatched salamanders is lower than before. Without accounting for and ruling out these and other alternative explanations, the arguer cannot bolster the recommendation.
  The last but not the least important, even if the evidence turns out to support the foregoing assumptions, the arguer just simply assumes that the population of a species of salamander has declined means population declines in other  salamander species and neither any conclusive scientific evidence nor any anecdotal evidence is provided to affirm this assumption. It is reasonable to doubt that what the arguer assumes will not happen in reality. It is just as possible that ultraviolet radiation makes other salamander species stronger and increases the population of them. Besides, will this process cause population declines in other species? Actually there is no direct connections between them. To reach the cited conclusion, the arguer must explain either why none of these alternatives is available or why none of them is able to sustain.
  In conclusion, the arguer fails to establish a causal relationship between population declining in the salamander species and other species, all species and ultraviolet radiation. The arguer’s argument mentioned above is not based on valid evidence or sound reasoning, neither of which is dispensable for a conclusive argument. In order to draw a better conclusion, the arguer should reason more convincingly, cite some evidence that is more persuasive, and take every possible consideration into account.

第一次完整的写，最后一段是抄的模板，下次改进~

finalleUID: 2812504

by Agnes
2010-7-26

The arguer concludes that the phenomenon that increasing ultraviolet radiation caused from the thinning of the Earth's ozone layer has caused a species of salamander to decline, and will certainly lead to the same population declines in other species. Further investigation into the author's reasoning will show that this argument contains several flaws, which proves it to be unconvincing.

Firstly, no evidence has been provided to prove that the declining population of the salamander that lays its eggs in mountain lakes alone results from the increasing ultraviolet radiation. The arguer does give reader an explanation that ultraviolet radiation whose damaging power over delicate tissues may ruin salamander eggs without protective shells. However, there might be other alternative explanations for the decline. For example, the weather where female salamanders live后面应该有介词和weather有关 is atrocious that violent wind and driving rain prevents them from enduring until the end of childbirth. Or, the increasing of living foods may also influence the physical condition of female salamanders, which may be too weak to give birth to its children. As a result of changeable climate, other alternative explanations should be considered while ultraviolet radiation alone can not fully explain the drop in the population of the species.

Secondly, only because ultraviolet radiation will damage delicate tissues, it does not mean the change of tissues will do harm to the hatching of the eggs, or even kill the eggs. Besides its hazards, ultraviolet radiation still enjoys some advantages.
As is known to all, while causing sunburn to people's body, ultraviolet radiation can also help people's bones to develop. Therefore, there lies great possibility that such radiation can benefit the incubation of eggs. Without any scientific proofs to show the effects of ultraviolet radiation, it is ex parte for the arguer to make such groundless conclusion that the radiation prevents the eggs from hatching.

有时候你用the 有时候没有 前后一致 还是↓故意强调？
Thirdly, even if the ultraviolet radiation do damage前后时态问题 the salamander eggs with no protective shells, the arguer cannot made a cursory conclusion that such damage also exists in other species. If take a species with a hard shell as an example, they may be less likely to be influenced by ultraviolet radiation. In addition, if the surface is hard and thick enough to protect the inside body, no damage will be made to the eggs.

In sum, the arguer's conclusion is unconvincing as it stands. In order to better support this argument, the arguer should convince the readers that the decline in the population is directly and only caused by ultraviolet radiation with plenty of scientific figures and research results. Then the arguer should give reasons to prove that the disadvantages of the radiation over eggs are all the same. To attest it, abundant researches should be essential.

总体写的很好，我反复看了好几遍，语言句型都比较不错 没有模板的痕迹
就是最后结尾好像有点不太顺畅 加油！

ltymoonUID: 2685371

先占座，吼吼吼

hwslqcUID: 2861597

果然又超时了.........还写的乱七八糟......... 往死里拍我吧...


TOPIC: ARGUMENT207 - It is known that in recent years, industrial pollution has caused the Earth's ozone layer to thin, allowing an increase in the amount of ultraviolet radiation that reaches the Earth's surface. At the same time, scientists have discovered, the population of a species of salamander that lays its eggs in mountain lakes has declined. Since ultraviolet radiation is known to be damaging to delicate tissues and since salamander eggs have no protective shells, it must be the case that the increase in ultraviolet radiation has damaged many salamander eggs and prevented them from hatching. This process will no doubt cause population declines in other species, just as it has in the salamander species.
WORDS: 483

TIME: 00:45:00
DATE: 2010-7-26 15:18:13


The notion that the increasing ultraviolet radiation will cause population declines in many species seems to be sound and convincing at first glance. After all, the increasing in the amount of ultraviolet radiation and the decreasing of the population of salamanders happened synchronically. And the damaging of the ultraviolet radiation and the delicate of salamander eggs are well known. However, close scrutiny of each of these evidences reveals
that none of them lend credible support to the conclusion. The reasons are stated
below.


First of all, the author assumes a causal relationship between the increasing of the ultraviolet radiation and the decreasing of the population of a species of salamanders. Even these two phenomena happened at the same time, it can not be the evidence that they have a causal relationship with each other. As we known, the decreasing of the population of salamander may caused by many other factors. For instance, over haunting or the damage of their living environment will obviously lead to the decline. As the argument cited that this specific salamander lay their eggs in mountain lakes, maybe its' population's decreasing is caused by the people who lived near the lake. Maybe these people will always bring some eggs to home as disserts. As the population of human beings booms,
it will definitely cause the decreasing of the number of this specific salamander. So without ruling out other possibility, the phenomenon says
little more than these two events happened at the same time.

Another assumption made by the author is that the increase in ultraviolet radiation prevented the eggs from hatching. But the author offers no evidence to support this assumption. Even salamander eggs have no protective shells, the degree of the damage caused by ultraviolet radiation is still unknown. If the damaging caused by ultraviolet radiation is tiny and can not fully drill through even one layer of tissue, it will not prevent the egg from halting. The lack of evidence actually undermined the arguer's conclusion. Consequently, the conclusion without evidence is unconvincing and ineffective.这一段你不应该是去怀疑紫外线能否杀死卵，因为在题目中这就是一个给定了的事实了，紫外线就是能够穿透没有壳保护的卵，不存在需不需要去证明，你应该去驳斥的不是紫外线能否杀死卵，而是紫外线是否是唯一一个导致卵没有孵出来的原因，你要说明的是除了紫外线还有其他许多因素都能导致卵孵出来，并列举一些出来，因此证明作者不能判断蜥蜴卵数量的减少是因为紫外线的加强。()


Granted the ultraviolet radiation will prevented the specific salamander from hatching, which is of course an unwarranted assumption, it can not be the evidence to prove the other species will be the same. The arguer did not provide any information to show the similarity of salamander and other types of salamanders, or the other species. How can we use this specific salamander as the representative? The structure of their body, the environment they live, the circle of their life or the tissue of these species may be basically different, especially for those species whose eggs have protective shells. The ultraviolet radiation may just be kept out and can do nothing to these species’ eggs. Then it is no doubt that it can not cause the population declines to these species.

After pointing out so many flaws above, now we can say the evidence used to support the conclusion can not be relied on. The ultraviolet radiation may cause the declines to some species. But before making the conclusion, the author has to do more researches about how the ultraviolet radiation will damage the tissue and what is the degree of such damaging, what result can it cause.

hwslqcUID: 2861597

In this argument, the speaker ascribe the population decline of a species of salamander to the increase of ultraviolet radiation imposing on the salamander eggs, which will damages and sterilize the eggs, and further induced that population of other species will also decline for the same reason. Although it is true that industrial pollution is undermining the ozone layer of Earth and this process happens at the same time of the population decline of that salamander, this only correlation is insufficient to turn itself to causation.

First of all, industrial pollution and(前半部分不要写吧,因为后面论证有可能是pollution导致的其它原因导致的decline) the consequence of ultraviolet increase may not be the very reason of population decline of this kind of salamander. Industrial pollution not only weakens the ozone layer, but also brings other environmental problems which can decrease the population of that salamander either, such as global warming, increase of acid rain, and etc. The speaker failed to exclude causes other than ultraviolet radiation. In addition, as we all know, the damage of ozone layer varies from place to place, and it is thinner in polar areas than that near equator. Thus the increase of ultraviolet radiation is very small in places near equator. The speaker fail to provide the location of the discovery, and it may be possible that the population of the same species of salamander in mountain lakes closer to polar has no sign of decline. This will over turn the foundation of this argument. Further, Even if higher density of ultraviolet radiation can cause the egg damagement(上网查过了,这个词真的用的不多…建议换一个), the speaker provided no evidence to prove that the eggs will be exposed to sun light and the weather there during the hatching season will be mostly sunny. If the weather is always cloudy or rainy, how could we say ultraviolet radiation is the reason?

Although the decline of salamander population is observed at the same time of increasing industrial pollution, there also exists the boom of human population and thus the damage of natural environment, which can also influence the population of salamander. Consequences like over deforestation will reduce the habitat of all species and thus reduce the food of salamander, or even drive the natural enemy of that salamander in other lakes to where this study has done.

Therefore, the conclusion that stronger ultraviolet radiation causes the decline of salamander population is unreasonable. As a result, another assertion of the speaker that other species will also suffer the population decrease by the same reason has obviously lost its rationality, not mention other species may have protective shells or even lay eggs where sun light can never reach.

逻辑清晰,语言流畅,第二段的攻击对我来说都快成范文了……所遇语言逻辑我就不评价了.
但是结构上有些地方我不敢苟同.首先,全文的攻击点基本都放在第二段, 虽然北美范文确实有这样的,但是如果把even if 的让步以及后面的内容拿出来,写成另一段效果会不会更好呢?其次在第三段的攻击点放在了同时上,说他因也会导致这个问题.感觉和第二段有些重复.如果改成再次让步,把范围问题从结尾段放过来会不会让ETS感觉攻击更有力度呢?
总之,这篇文章语言逻辑都非常棒,赞一个.




[改hty]

  This argument reaches two conclusions that the decline in the population of salamander in is attributable to the increase in the amount of ultraviolet radiation caused by serious industrial pollution and just as what happens to salamander, other species will experience the population decrease. To espouse these conclusions, the author just depicts two phenomena which come about simultaneously. Obviously, the course of reasoning embraces several logical fallacies and is therefore lack of stringency.
    A threshold problem with the argument involves the process of deducing cause-and-effect relationship between escalating influx of ultraviolet radiation and ebbing of salamander's hatching. It is unfair to justify that irradiating with(改成被动….) more ultraviolet rays leads to encumbing(首先这个词是错误的,没有这个词.其次,我真的不知道你要写什么词…) salamanders’ eggs hatching, merely resting on the fact that those two things occur at the same time. Many other possibilities must be taken into account. Perhaps environment in mountain lakes is contaminated by polluted water carrying variety of bacteria, which interferes the hatching progressing. Since salamander eggs is really vulnerable without protective shells, the hatching  processing can be disturbed by many other reasons, like eaten by small animals whose number is going up and so forth. Without ruling out other cases, the author cannot rationalize that ultraviolet radiation is the main reason for the low rate of success in hatching.
    Second, the argument claims that salamander population decreasing occurs when the eggs hatching is prevented by abnormal ultraviolet radiation, and automatically assumes that the decline in population is put down to susceptible hatching. However, this might not be the case. The arguer apparently overlooks other possible explanations for reducing population. For example, a formidable conflagration takes place in the mountain and therefore cause ruin of the habitat for salamander, which coerce salamander into migrating to other places for survival. Or perhaps human devastating activity arouses bedlam of ecological balance and ultimately influences the population of salamander. These hypotheses may render the same consequence in some particular situations.
    Finally, even assuming that disadvantage of eggs hatching is attributed to overabundance of ultraviolet radiation, which causes fall in the population, the arguer cannot duplicate the conclusion to the entire animate species. For the sake of reaching rigorous outcome, the author must cogitate other relevant aspects or conditions which may impact the final result or even draw the opposite conclusion. Some animals, like earthworms, mice, spiders and so on, live underground for most of the time, where shield these species from ultraviolet rays. So in this case, whether radiation is too powerful or at the normal level is out of the question. In addition, the species living in sea, like dolphins, sharps, eels etc., can be refrained from excessive ultraviolet radiation by light reflection, making ultraviolet rays inconsequential.
     In sum, the argument for inordinate ultraviolet rays and reduction in salamander species may imply some relationship between these two facts and potentially hint reasonable explanation for this phenomenon. Before conclusions about the causal bearing between these factors, a further observation or experiment should be implemented. Since several mistakes come forth in the argument, we need more evidences and statistic to buttress the conclusions.

一堆拼写和语法错误….. 希望下次自己粘贴到work上订正过后再发上来. 尊重别人也是对自己的一种尊重对吧?

另外, 用词太犀利,蓝色对我来说都是生词…..膜拜
逻辑上,
工业污染导致臭氧层变薄导致紫外线增加à破坏火蜥蜴卵à种群下降à其它物种数量也会因此减少.这个argument每段正好攻击一个假设.每段都有了比较详细的事例,所以我认为逻辑,结构以及论述都没有问题~
注意一下标点,你明天就可以考Argument了!

PsMaggieUID: 2861847

这是本人写的第一篇Argument，拍的同学下手狠一点

TOPIC: ARGUMENT207 - It is known that in recent years, industrial pollution has caused the Earth's ozone layer to thin, allowing an increase in the amount of ultraviolet radiation that reaches the Earth's surface. At the same time, scientists have discovered, the population of a species of salamander that lays its eggs in mountain lakes has declined. Since ultraviolet radiation is known to be damaging to delicate tissues and since salamander eggs have no protective shells, it must be the case that the increase in ultraviolet radiation has damaged many salamander eggs and prevented them from hatching. This process will no doubt cause population declines in other species, just as it has in the salamander species.
WORDS: 783
TIME: 01:57:30
DATE: 2010/7/26 22:04:07

In this argument, the arguer concludes that population will decline in some species on the ground that the amount of ultraviolet radiation reaches the Earth's surface has increased, of which is caused by the industrial pollution’s leading the Earth's ozone layer to thin. To justify this claim, the arguer provides the evidence that the population of a species of salamander that lays its eggs in mountain lakes has declined which means the same result will happen in other species definitely. In addition, he points out that this kind of salamanders' eggs has no protective shells which would probably be killed by the ultraviolet radiation, therefore it is the enhancement of the ultraviolet radiation that makes this salamander species' amount declined. A careful examination of this argument would reveal how groundless the conclusion is.

In the first place, the arguer fails to rule out other possible factors that could result in the decline in the population of the salamander species. The arguer consider the possibility of the living of salamanders only based on the livability of their eggs which actually is just only a small part of the whole story. There are many other elements such as the predation from the bigger flesh-eaters, the destroying of their living environment, the snatching food behavior from other species and even the fighting among the salamander themselves are playing an significant part in this drastic reduction of population thing. Therefore, to attribute the reducing number of salamander to the reducing number of salamander univocally is a thoughtlessness. Given that it is the only factor for this phenomenon, killing by the ultraviolet is not the only reason to diminishing the amount of eggs while other things like meat-eaters' feeding on the eggs, suffering the natural disaster and so on are performing a role in this case. In the absence of all this information, it is impossible for us to come up with a result that the amount of the salamander species' lessening is due to the increasing of the amount of ultraviolet radiation.

In the second place, the example in this argument is incomplete and selective. The scientists only studied the population of salamanders at one certain cite, thus we could not assert that he overall salamander population is declining. We only know that the population of a species of salamander that lays its eggs in mountain lakes has declined but we have no idea how are the salamanders going on in other places in the Earth. There are many possibilities in this situation. The amount of other species of salamander may probably balance or boost instead of decrease which explains that the arguer's notion is unilateral totally. That special living environment the mountain lakes may cause a lot in this population thing. But the arguer only picked up the example of the salamander which lives in mountain lakes and neglected the other example of the salamander which lives in other place in the Earth before he reached a conclusion. What’s more he didn’t even compare the populations of other species of salamander whose eggs are not affected by ultraviolet radiation.

In the third place which at the same time is the most important point, we could not hastily generalize that other species will also be affected by the process merely based on the decline in the population of certain salamander species. Even if the reduction in the salamander’s number is led by the increase of the amount of ultraviolet radiation, we cannot allege that the ultraviolet radiation will brings about the reduction in other species. First of all not every species is oviparous. Secondly, as we all know, salamander can’t stand for all kind of species while we study other species through other methods but not the same method we use in studying salamander. How the other animals living, how they catch food, how they breed the next generation, how they avoid enemy are totally different, even that the ultraviolet radiation may have nothing to do with some other animals, not to mention the growing up of the ultraviolet radiation that reaches the Earth’s surface. So to claim the ultraviolet radiation’s growth in the Earth’s surface will cause the other species’ population declines is groundless utterances.

As it stands, the argument is not well reasoned. The arguer fails to establish a causal relationship between the salamander’s lessening and the ultraviolet radiation’s boost, and between one kind of species and the other kind of species. The conclusion lacks credibility because the evidence cited in the analysis does not lend strong support to what the arguer maintains. To strengthen the argument, the arguer would have to provide more evidence concerning the salamander’s dying and what will the ultraviolet radiation really cause.

PsMaggieUID: 2861847

改【09】

The notion that the increasing ultraviolet radiation will cause population declines in many species seems to be sound(少个副词) and convincing at first glance. After all, the increasing in the amount of ultraviolet radiation and decreasing of the population of a species of salamanders（of好多） happened synchronically. And the damaging of the ultraviolet radiation and the delicate of salamander eggs are well known. However, close scrutiny of each of these evidence reveals that none of them lend credible support to the conclusion. The reasons are stated as （去掉）below.
First of all, the author assumes a causal relationship between the increasing of the ultraviolet radiation and the decreasing of the population of a species of salamanders. Even these two phenomena happened at the same time, it can not be the evidence that they have a causal relationship with each other. As we known, the decreasing of the population of salamander may caused by many other factors. For instance, over haunting or the damage of their living environment will obviously lead to the decline. As the argument cited that this specific salamander lay their eggs in mountain lakes, maybe its' population's decreasing is caused by the people who lived near the lake.
Maybe these people will always bring some eggs to home as disserts.（把maybe换个词吧） And as time goes by, the population of human beings booms, （如果前面已经是as time goes by了，那么后面就是一个结果了，如果你要说的是随着人口增加，人口增加的后面才是结果的话，那就必须改成， as the population of human beings booms,）then it will definitely cause the decreasing of the number of this specific salamander. So without ruling out other possibility, the phenomena says (到底是单个现象还是多个现象？)little more than these two events happened at the same time.
Another assumption made by the author is that the increase in ultraviolet radiation prevented the eggs from hatching. But the author offers no evidence to support this assumption. Even salamander eggs have no protective shells, the degree of the damage caused by ultraviolet radiation is still unknown. If the damaging caused by ultraviolet radiation is tiny and can not fully drill through even one layer of tissue, it will not prevent the egg from halting. The lack of evidence actually undermined the arguer's conclusion. Consequently, the conclusion without evidence is unconvincing and ineffective.这一段你不应该是去怀疑紫外线能否杀死卵，因为在题目中这就是一个给定了的事实了，紫外线就是能够穿透没有壳保护的卵，不存在需不需要去证明，你应该去驳斥的不是紫外线能否杀死卵，而是紫外线是否是唯一一个导致卵没有孵出来的原因，你要说明的是除了紫外线还有其他许多因素都能导致卵孵出来，并列举一些出来，因此证明作者不能判断蜥蜴卵数量的减少是因为紫外线的加强。
Granted the ultraviolet radiation will prevented the specific salamander from hatching, which is of course an unwarranted（这个是未经授权的意思吗？如果是这个意思的话，一种假设应该不需要得到什么授权的吧？） assumption, it can not be the evidence to prove the other species will be the same. The arguer did not provide any information to show the similarity of salamander and other types of salamanders, or the other species. How can we use this specific salamander as the representative? The structure of their body, the environment they live, the circle of their life or the tissue of these species may be basically different, especially for those species whose eggs have protective shells. The ultraviolet radiation may just be kept out and can do nothing to these species’ eggs. Then it is no doubt that it can not cause the population declines to these species.

After pointing out so many flaw（复数） above, now we can say the evidence used to support the conclusion can not be relied on. The ultraviolet radiation may cause the declines to some species. But before making the conclusion, the author has to do more researches about how the ultraviolet radiation will damage the tissue and what is the degree of such damaging, what result can it cause.

hythythytUID: 2857045

才练Argument没多久，请多多指教

     This argument reaches two conclusions that the decline in the population of salamander in is attributable to the increase in the amount of ultraviolet radiation caused by serious industral pollution and just as what happens to salamander,other species will experience the population decrease.To espouse these conclusions,the author just despicts two phnomena which come about simultaneously.Obviously,the course of reasoning embraces several logical fallacies and is therefore lack of stringency.
    A threshold problem with the argument involves the process of deducing cause-and-effect relationship between escalating influx of ultraviolet radiation and ebbing of salamander's hatching.It is unfair to justify that irradiating with more ultraviolet rays leads to encumbing salsamander eggs hatching,merely resting on the fact that those two things occur at the same time.Many other possibilities must be taken into account.Perhaps environment in mountain lakes is contaminated by polluted water carrying variety of bacteria,which interferes the hatching progressing.Since salamander eggs is really vulnerable without protecitve shells,the hatching  processing can be distrubed by many other reasons,like eaten by small animals whose number is going up and so forth.Without rulling out other cases,the author cannot rationalize that ultraviolet radiation is the main reason for the low rate of success in hatching.
    Second,the argument claims that salamander population decresing occurs when the eggs hatching is prevented by abnormal ultraviolet radiation,and automatically assumes that the decline in population is put down to susceptible hatching.However,this might not be the case.The arguer apparently overlooks other possible explanations for reducing population.For example,a formidable conflagration takes place in the mountain and therefore cause ruin of the habitat for salamander,which coerce salamander into migrating to other places for survival.Or perhaps human devastating activity arouses bedlam of ecological balance and ultimately influences the population of salamander.These hypotheses may render the same consequence in some particular situations.
    Finally,even assuming that disadvantage of eggs hatching is attributed to overbundance of ultraviolet radiation,which causes fall in the population,the arguer cannot duplicate the conclusion to the entire animate species.For the sake of reaching rigorous outcome,the author must cogitate other relevant aspects or conditions which may impact the fianl result or even draw the opposite conclusion.Some animals,like earthworns,mice,spiders and so on,live underground for most of the time,where shield these species from ultraviolet rays.So in this case,whether radiation is too powerful or at the normal level is out of the question.In addition,the species living in sea,like dolphins,sharps,eels etc,can be refrained from excessive ultraviolet radiation by light reflection,making ultraviolet rays inconsequential.
     In sum,the argument for inordinate ultraviolet rays and reduction in salamander species may imply some relationship between these two facts and potentially hint resonable explanation for this phenomenon.Before conclussions about the causal bearing between these factors,a further observation or experiment should be implemented.Since several mistakes come forth in the argument, we need more evidences and statistic to buttress the conclusions.

hythythytUID: 2857045

红色：有错误；黄色：不太合适的地方；绿色：改动的地方；画横线：删掉的部分
In this argument, in order to support that this process[指代不明，改为：increasing influx of ultraviolet rays/radiation]
will no doubt cause population declines in other species, just as it has in the salamander species[这句话无主语，语法有错误，今后第一句话千万不能出错，印象不好：This argument claims/concludes that...]. The author quote the connection between ultraviolet[是adj.要有名词在后] radiation and eggs[复数]
of salamander and the salamander eggs[这里来回重复了，这样给ETS的感觉不好，句式可以改一下,用ing形式：using decline of salamander population as evidence ] in mountain lakes has declined as the evidence. I think the connection between ultraviolet
rays
and eggs
of salamander has some flaws such as the cause of the salamander eggs reduction
has declined[语法问题]
maybe
may be[语法问题]other reasons. At the same time, the eggs in mountain lakes declined also has problem of that the ultraviolet radiration
is not the only factor to the decline[表达混乱，如果长句掌握不了，用短句子也行]. From my perspective, it is far from well reasoned.
First of all, the main flaw
mistake/fallacy/error [词语尽量不要重复] is that there is no evidence show population of other species will declines as salamander. Maybe only the eggs which have no protective shells will be damaged. Other species such as pig, horse and human being will survived from the ultraviolet radiation. Set human as a example, ultraviolet is harmful
but we equip something like sunglass and clothes to prevent it. So the process will not cause all species population declines.
Another fallacy that weakens in
[语法问题]this argument is that the eggs in mountain lakes cannot represent[什么意思？] the salamander species. The cause of the eggs has declined[语法问题]
maybe
[这个句子与前文有重复，句式要有变化]another factor include
including environment pollution and the slaughter of salamander. So the author cannot convince that the eggs decrease result in
salamander species population has declined
.
Third, no evidence support that the ultraviolet will kills the salamander eggs. There is another possible that the ultraviolet just weaken the eggs or make the eggs mutated
matate. According that the assumption conclusion
of ultraviolet radiation cause the population of salamander is false. Obviously, if this assumption is unsubstantiated, let alone about other species[这里有些逻辑问题，其实无论以上的猜测是否正确，与后者都没关系].
In a nutshell, I have been analyzed [语法问题] so many flaws in this argument. In my opinion, the argument should reason more convincingly. So if I were the author I would account the evidence such as what the ultraviolet damage to the eggs[？？] to make the argument more cogent while whether the process of salamander has appeared in many places of the world also needs to be supported.
Comments:语法上问题比较多，句式过于简单和单调，论据不是很充分，讨论逻辑问题时缺少对问题讨论顺序的安排。不过，是第一次吗，别灰心，加油！建议阅读一些范文!


改Finalle的：

In this argument, the arguer concludes that industrial pollution will cause the  population declines in other species, just as the population of a species of salamander that lays its eggs in moutain lakes has declined. To support this conclusion,the arguer points out that with the Earth's ozone layer to thin, there is an increase in the amount of ultraviolet radiation that reaches the Earth's surface. In addition, the arguer reasons that  because (语法有问题，删去)the increase in ultraviolet radiation has damaged many salamander eggs and prevented them from hatching. This argument suffers from(不太适合形容人吧，用has/contains/embraces都行) several critical fallacies.
  First, the argument is based on a false analogy. The arguer simply assumes that the species of salamander that lays its eggs in mountain lakes has declined for salamander eggs have(having) no protective shells, but he does not provede(拼写错误) any evidence that they have direct casual relations. As we know, the fall in the population of the salamander may have many reasons, such as man killed the adult salamander and the man made environment changes(change). Also, It is true that the degeneration characteristic of mountain lakes environment influenced by natural and human being are atrophy of wetland area, the water resource decrease, and ecological environment gets worse. Therefore, even though the industrial pollution has something to do with the decreasing of the population of the salamander, there is no guarantee that it kills the salamander eggs and prevents them from hatching.
  Second, the arguer commits a fallacy of hasty generalization. Even if ultraviolet radiation is known to be damaging to delicate tissues and salamander eggs have no protective shells, the arguer offers no evidence to substantiate this crucial assumption. It is very likely that the effects of ultraviolet radiation are not bad enough to keep salamander eggs from hatching, maybe they will just have some diseases. According to scientists, they have not give the findings about that the number of hatched salamanders is lower than before. Without accounting for and ruling out these and other alternative explanations, the arguer cannot bolster the recommendation.
  The last but not the least important(这种句式不要用，有凑字数的嫌疑), even if the evidence turns out to support the foregoing assumptions, the arguer just simply assumes that the population of a species of salamander has declined means population declines in other  salamander species and neither any conclusive scientific evidence nor any anecdotal evidence is provided to affirm this assumption. It is reasonable to doubt that what the arguer assumes will not happen in reality. It is just as possible that ultraviolet radiation makes other salamander species stronger and increases the population of them. Besides, will this process cause population declines in other species? Actually there is no direct connections between them. To reach the cited conclusion, the arguer must explain either why none of these alternatives is available or why none of them is able to sustain.
  In conclusion, the arguer fails to establish a causal relationship between population declining in the salamander species and other species, all species and ultraviolet radiation. The arguer’s argument mentioned above is not based on valid evidence or sound reasoning, neither of which is dispensable for a conclusive argument. In order to draw a better conclusion, the arguer should reason(deduce，避免重复) more convincingly, cite some evidence that is more persuasive, and take every possible consideration into account.

Comment:我不太建议在每段开头呈述错误时用hasty generalization，a false analogy这种比较泛泛的说法，说的具体一些才能充分展现你的观点。

zhangxiaohang1UID: 2705669

ARGUMENT207 - It is known that in recent years,industrial pollution has caused the Earth's ozone layer to thin, allowing anincrease in the amount of ultraviolet radiation that reaches the Earth'ssurface. At the same time, scientists have discovered, the population of aspecies of salamander that lays its eggs in mountain lakes has declined. Sinceultraviolet radiation is known to be damaging to delicate tissues and sincesalamander eggs have no protective shells, it must be the case that theincrease in ultraviolet radiation has damaged many salamander eggs andprevented them from hatching. This process will no doubt cause populationdeclines in other species, just as it has in the salamander species.

WORDS: 440
TIME: 00:45:00
DATE: 2010/7/2612:34:46

 

The author conclude that all species' populationwill decline by the thinner ozone layer just because the declining ofsalamander in mountain lakes and its none-shell eggs. In his logical chain,there are several mistakes without which we could not agree with author'sconclusion.

First, it's true that Earth's ozone layer is beingthinner, but whether it's the cause for the declining of the population ofsalamander is not clear. The causation between these two facts is open todoubt. In general, the competition between species is always the main causewhich leads to species' population declining. What's more, man's actions suchas pollution in water or air, killing them for food and so forth can also bethe causes. The fact that salamander's eggs without protect shells is notdirectly prove that their death are caused by ultraviolet radiation. In lakes,water could reflex and absorb part of ultraviolet radiation and as I know theratio of the absorption by water is not low. Therefore, to concludesalamander's declining attribute to the thinner ozone layer author should giveus more analysis and data directly proved this conclusion.

For his second logical mistake, many salamandereggs death not equal to their population's declining, is easily to be refuted.Everybody knows some species always lay more eggs then they need to assure thatafter these eggs’ death by many reasons they still have enough eggs to keeptheir normal breeding and their species from the danger to be extinct. Forinstance, fishes and turtles are the representative species mentioned above. Ifauthor provides data about whether salamander’s way of breeding likes fishesand turtles’, it may contribute to accomplishing his logical chain.

Finally, there is no reason to hastily generalizationthat other species' population declining, if exist, causing by thinner ozonelayer or to say its industrial pollution. Every species have its own way toreproduce and salamander may not be the sample whose reproducing way mostrepresentative and have the most similarity to other species’. As thedifferences between species’ way of reproduction such as other species’ eggswith shell and mammalian viviparous one the generalization are hasty, weak and unwarranted. In short,lacking evidence that salamander’s breeding way is the most typical one theauthor cannot convince me to his conclusion.

In sum, the author's evidence accomplishes littletoward supporting his argument for species' population declining. To furtherbolster his conclusion the author must provide better evidence, perhaps thecausation between the declining and ultraviolet radiation and the reason why hecould generalization this phenomenon to other species. With those evidencesauthor's conclusion have more reliability to the readers.

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

自改后

ARGUMENT207 -It is known that in recent years, industrial pollution has caused the Earth'sozone layer to thin, allowing an increase in the amount of ultravioletradiation that reaches the Earth's surface. At the same time, scientists havediscovered, the population of a species of salamander that lays its eggs inmountain lakes has declined. Since ultraviolet radiation is known to bedamaging to delicate tissues and since salamander eggs have no protectiveshells, it must be the case that the increase in ultraviolet radiation hasdamaged many salamander eggs and prevented them from hatching. This processwill no doubt cause population declines in other species, just as it has in thesalamander species.
WORDS: 450
TIME: 00:45:00
DATE: 2010/7/26 12:34:46
 
 
The authorconcludes that all species' populations are reduced by the thinner ozone layerjust because the declining of salamander in mountain lakes and its none-shelleggs. In his logical chain, there are several mistakes; unless solving them wecould not agree with author's conclusion.


First, it'strue that Earth's ozone layer is being thinner, but whether it's the cause forthe decreasing of the population of salamander is not clear. The causationbetween these two facts is open to doubt. In general, the competition betweenspecies is always one of the main causes which leads to species' populationdeclining. What's more, man's actions such as pollution in water or air,killing them for food and so forth can also be the causes. The fact thatsalamander's eggs are without protective shells is not a directly proof totheir death causing by ultraviolet radiation. In lakes, water could reflex andabsorb part of ultraviolet radiation and as I know the ratio of the absorptionby water is not low. Therefore, to conclude salamander's decreasing attributeto the thinner ozone layer author should give us more analysis and datadirectly proved this conclusion.
 
For his secondlogical mistake, many salamander eggs death is not equal to their population'sdeclining[5], is easily to be refuted. Everybody knows some species always laymore eggs then they need to assure that after these eggs’ death by many reasonsthey still have enough eggs to keep their normal breeding and their speciesfrom the danger to be extinct. For instance, fishes and turtles are therepresentative species mentioned above. If author provides data about whethersalamander’s way of breeding is similar to fishes and turtles’, it maycontribute to achieving his logical chain.
 
Finally, thereis no reason to hastily generalize that other species' population decreasing,if the decreasing exists, is caused by thinner ozone layer or to say itsindustrial pollution. Every species have its own way to reproduce andsalamander may not be the sample whose reproducing way most representative andhave the most similarity to other species’. As the differences between species’way of reproduction such as other species’ eggs with shell and mammalianviviparous one the generalization are hasty, weak and unwarranted. In short,lacking evidence that salamander’s breeding way is the most typical one theauthor cannot convince me to his conclusion.
 
In sum, theauthor's evidence accomplishes little toward supporting his argument forspecies' population declining. To further bolster his conclusion the authormust provide better evidence, perhaps the causation between the declining andultraviolet radiation and the reason why he could generalization thisphenomenon to other species. With those evidences author's conclusion have morereliability to the readers.