【10G10hawk】7月26日作业——argument207

zhangxiaohang1UID: 2705669

改谦行
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.

开头简洁
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.【和第一句有点重复】 Perhaps, the water population【？pollution?】 in the lake is getting worse in resent years. The chemicals polluted the mountain lakes are highly[感觉不对] 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.可以再加一句总结

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.结尾太多模板，基本啥也没说。我觉得这样不好。

全文写的很好，问题都是主要问题，展开再深入点就更好了！模板我觉得不能用太多！：）加油↖(^ω^)↗



=======================================================================================
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 declines in some species on the ground that amount of ultraviolet radiation that reaches the Earth's surface has increased which is caused by the industrial pollution has lead 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.
开头有点长，需要压缩一些，尤其引述原文，最好两句，一句结论，一句证据；然后说错误。
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【食肉动物?carnivore 】, 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[好] is due to the increasing of the amount of ultraviolet radiation.
论证很充分
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.
我觉得把从山上的蜥蜴推到所有蜥蜴再推到所有物种可以和一起说！就是把这段和下一段放在一起。缩减一下，好再说一点别的错误！
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.

呃，和谦行一样。结尾套话多。 个人见解，仅供参考

wellteaUID: 2265842

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.

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, the speaker’s assertion that the damage of eggs is the very reason of population decline of this kind of salamander is ill founded. 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 global warming can change the climate of mountain lakes, like increasing the average temperature, bring more natural fire, and even drying out the lakes, which may kill the salamander directly, or drive them to other places. The increase of acid rain can cause disease, destroy plants in the area, or even kill them either. Although the decline of salamander population is observed at the same time when increasing industrial pollution occurs, there also exists the boom of human population and thus the damage of natural environment during this period, 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 performed. Before ruling out other possible reasons, this assertion of the speaker is inconvincible.

In addition, even if the speaker managed to prove that the damage of salamander eggs caused the population decline, he still failed to convince me that it is the increased ultraviolet radiation that have damaged the salamander eggs. 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 overturn the foundation of this argument. Further, Even if higher density of ultraviolet radiation can damage the egg, 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? Besides, many other reasons also can damage the eggs, like the above mentioned acid rain or increase of other animals that eat these eggs.

Finally, 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.

In sum, the speaker failed to provide enough information to support the assertion that the correlation is the very causation. What’s more, the speaker has ridiculously extended the assertion to an immense range of species, which is completely inconvincible.

wellteaUID: 2265842

改07 hythythyt同学：

Argument207_07hyt.doc (40 KB, 下载次数: 3)

2010-7-27 14:56:20 上传

下载次数: 3

改09 hwslqc同学：


TOPIC: ARGUMENT207 - It isknown that in recent years, industrial pollution has caused the Earth's ozonelayer to thin, allowing an increase in the amount of ultraviolet radiation thatreaches the Earth's surface. At the same time, scientists have discovered, thepopulation of a species of salamander that lays its eggs in mountain lakes hasdeclined. Since ultraviolet radiation is known to be damaging to delicatetissues and since salamander eggs have no protective shells, it must be thecase that the increase in ultraviolet radiation has damaged many salamandereggs and prevented them from hatching. This process will no doubt causepopulation 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 willcause population declines in many species seems to be sound and convincing atfirst glance. After all, the increasing in the amount of ultraviolet radiationand the decreasing of the population of salamanders happened synchronically.And the damaging of the ultraviolet radiation and the delicate of salamandereggs are well known. However, close scrutiny of each of these evidences reveals that none of them lend credible support to theconclusion. The reasons are stated below.


First of all, the author assumes a causalrelationship between the increasing of the ultraviolet radiation and thedecreasing of the population of a species of salamanders. Even these twophenomena happened at the same time, it can not be the evidence that they havea causal relationship with each other. As we known, the decreasing of thepopulation of salamander may caused by many other factors. For instance, overhaunting or the damage of their living environment will obviously lead to thedecline. As the argument cited that this specific salamander lay their eggs inmountain lakes, maybe its' population's decreasing is caused by the people wholived near the lake. Maybe these people will always bring some eggs to home asdisserts.
As the population of human beings booms, it will definitely cause the decreasing of the number ofthis specific salamander.
So without ruling out other possibility, the phenomenonsays
little more than these two events happened at thesame time.

Another assumption made by the author is that theincrease in ultraviolet radiation prevented the eggs from hatching. But theauthor offers no evidence to support this assumption. Even salamander eggs haveno protective shells, the degree of the damage caused by ultraviolet radiationis still unknown. If the damaging caused by ultraviolet radiation is tiny andcan not fully drill through even one layer of tissue, it will not prevent theegg from halting. The lack of evidence actually undermined the arguer'sconclusion. Consequently, the conclusion without evidence is unconvincing andineffective.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 preventedthe specific salamander from hatching, which is of course an
unwarrantedassumption, it can not be the evidence to prove the other species will be thesame. The arguer did not provide any information to show the similarity of
between this species of salamander and other types ofsalamanders, or the other species. How can we use this specific salamander asthe representative? The structure of their body, the environment they live, thecircle of their life or the tissue of these species may be basically different,especially for those species whose eggs have protective shells. The ultravioletradiation may just be kept out and can do nothing to these species’ eggs. Thenit is no doubt that it can not cause the population declines to
of thesespecies.

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

语言上没说的，清晰流畅，看起来一气呵成，尽管有一点不影响大局的小错误，我感觉这样的文字应付考试肯定够了。

结构上，三段话分别攻击三个推论，前两个和第三个攻击之间有递进关系，但前两个攻击自身信息量较少，一个给出了其他造成数量下降的原因，一个质疑紫外线会破坏卵。这样全文相当于只攻击了三个点，如果其中有任何一个考官不是很认同，或者觉得偏，对分数影响可能就比较大了。

题目的逻辑主线是：工业污染导致臭氧层变薄à紫外线增加à破坏火蜥蜴卵à种群下降
如果一段攻击前两个推论，一段攻击第三个推论，再加上你的第三段攻击，就可以有4个攻击点。其中每个推论根据情况可以从两方面说，A不一定推出B，B不一定是A造成的，然后再递进什么的。这样是不是更有说服力。

sharonyeUID: 2862009

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.
生平第一篇argument，估计写了一个多小时吧，用词简单，思维幼稚，真不好意思发上来，希望可以在今后有所进步，谢谢
In this argument ,the arguer claims that the population of species will decline because of the increase in the amount of ultraviolet radiation that reaches the Earth's surface.This conclusion is based on the discovery that the population of a species of salamander that lays its eggs in mountain lakes has declined and the declination is due to the damage of its preventive shells by ultraviolet radiation.However ,the arguer’s assumption suffers from several critical fallacies.
First of all ,it is known to everyone that the earth is keeping on changing , temperatuer,atmonsphere and many other climate tips are always different from one time to another .Climate change is a fatastic power that
could be the cause of the extinction of dinosaurs, let along salamaders’ laying eggs. Although the arguer cited a scientific phenomenon that ultraviolet radiation is damaging to delicate tissues, there is no evidence to show ultraviolet radiation is the only reason that shapes salamaders’ life , maybe salamaders are not adapted to the changed environment near
mountain lakes ,maybe their enemy egxists in mountain lakes and their eggs are always been stolen(people are likely to be one of the stealers) or maybe they have found a better place for laying and don't want to live here any more(sometimes animals are so claver and lovely ) , the arguer has no right to say’ it must be the case that the increase in ultraviolet radiation has damaged many salamander eggs and prevented them from hatching.’A famous advertise tells us ‘everything is possible’, isn’t it?
Second , although ultraviolet radiation really dose harm to the eggs , the arguer’s assumption is still unvalidated for it’s false analogy .Every specie is different , dinosaur’s extinction doesn’t mean human’s exdinction , salamanders’ daclination also can’t decide other species’ destiny ,after all , not all animals lay eggs. What’s more, no laying in mount lakes is not a sufficient evidence ,even an evidence showing the daclination of salamander , this specie is likely to be stronger and stronger in other better places (should we congratulate if so).
Fanally another point which is radiculous and a common sense
worth considering is that Earth's ozone layer is not the same thin every where ,without knowing the condition of ozone layer above mount lakes ,the arguer’s assumption are all in vain.
In conclusion ,the argument is not entierly well reasoned.If not given imformation that was about expressed in the paragraph,it can’t convince me of anything .

agnes2010UID: 2794922

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.


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 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.


Thirdly, even if the ultraviolet radiation do damage 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.

=====================================
自改一
by Agnes
2010-7-28

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 in where female salamanders live 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.

Thirdly, even if the ultraviolet radiation does damage 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 caused by ultraviolet radiation alone with plenty of scientific figures and research results. Furthermore, the proofs to show different kinds of species' eggs enjoy the same reaction are also essential to attest the conclusion.

=====================================
自改二
by Agnes
2010-7-29

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 in where female salamanders live 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.

Thirdly, even if the ultraviolet radiation does damage 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 caused by ultraviolet radiation alone with plenty of scientific figures and research results. Furthermore, the proofs to show different kinds of species' eggs enjoy the same reaction are also essential to attest the conclusion.

agnes2010UID: 2794922

改[03]晓航

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: 440          TIME: 00:45:00          DATE: 2010/7/26 12:34:46

green- 语法错误
blue-好词好句
red-不理解的地方
purple-建议

The author conclude[+s/d] that all species' population will decline by[be reduced by] the thinner ozone layer just because the declining of salamander in mountain lakes and its none-shell eggs. In his logical chain, there are several mistakes without which we could not agree with author's conclusion.[这句话好拗口，觉得表达错了，没有了这些错误我们就不能同意作者的结论？？？难道是双重否定=肯定？不太理解...望解释~]

First, it's true that Earth's ozone layer is being thinner, but whether it's the cause for the declining[首段已经出现了两次decline了，所以尽量不要用重复的词吧] of the population of salamander is not clear. The causation[学习~] between these two facts is open to doubt[继续学习]. In general, the competition between species is always the main cause[如果要说明是主要原因，最好能给出证明，或者不要轻易断言是main的吧~ 这是我的个人理解，供参考] which leads to species' population declining[decline的第四次亮相，强烈建议使用别的表示下降的词汇~ decrease reduce drop....]. 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 that salamander's eggs without protect shells is not directly prove[这里的语法问题很大...首先protect 其次is和prove连用不对] that their death are caused by ultraviolet radiation. In lakes, water could reflex and absorb part of ultraviolet radiation and as I know the ratio of the absorption by water is not low. Therefore, to conclude salamander's declining[要改改阿] attribute to the thinner ozone layer author should give us more analysis and data directly proved this conclusion.

For his second logical mistake, many salamander eggs death not equal[be动词在哪里？如果equal作为动词，那么not不该这样用] to their population's declining[5], 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 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 likes[表示像？不对吧？] fishes and turtles’, it may contribute to accomplishing his logical chain.

Finally, there is no reason to hastily generalization[generalize] that other species' population declining[6][这里that后面应该成一句句子，这样用动词不正确], if exist[主语在哪里？主句中也没有找到...], causing 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 mammalian viviparous one the generalization are hasty, weak and unwarranted. In short, lacking evidence that salamander’s breeding way is the most typical one the author cannot convince me to his conclusion.

In sum, the author's evidence accomplishes little toward supporting his argument for species' population declining[7]. To further bolster his conclusion the author must provide better evidence, perhaps the causation between the declining[8] and ultraviolet radiation and the reason why he could generalization this phenomenon to other species. With those evidences author's conclusion have more reliability to the readers.

[感觉这篇文章读上去很累，关键的问题是语法，很多句子不通顺，主谓不明确，要读者自己去找，所以给人看来很吃力...另外，用词上，以declining为例，在表达下降这个概念的用法上给读者的印象就是：词汇太匮乏，也许晓航在写这篇文章时没太注重词汇吧，我觉得不一定要用难词，但是至少要体现出你会用很多词吧~否则很容易给考官不好的印象。
我想这篇文章首先应该把语法问题清干净，然后再好好理理思路，组织以下语句，应该不错的! 加油！]


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

改[01]小谦

green- 语法错误
blue-好词好句
red-不理解的地方
purple-建议

In this argument, the author asserts that due to increasing【这里用名词吧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 when the ozone layer hasn’t damaged.【是这样吗？我对这个知识不太理解，只知道臭氧会吸收UV，而且臭氧层空洞UV就更大，破坏性就更强...】 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【一直不太了解thus的用法，不知道这里用的对不对，比较常见——“，thus+doing”结构】 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【in】 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.【学习~这段分析可能性非常全面！】

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【感觉两个否定的概念放在一起，有点绕】 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.

【感觉整篇文章条理很清晰，用词用句也很丰富~ 学习一下~  尤其喜欢第二攻击段，给出了各种可能性，非常全面。 只是个人对第一攻击段的那个as we all know的一句有点不理解~】

ltymoonUID: 2685371

不好意思，今天被老板抓着干活。。。在实验室呆到巨晚T^T
立刻奔赴issue~~

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: 412          TIME: 00:27:00          DATE: 2010/7/26 23:13:41
In the speaker's assertation, he or she points out that the production of eggs of a special salamander declined 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 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.
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.
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, should it be true that other species will be influenced?
It is probably that the radition will contribute 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.
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 his or her opinion, the speaker needs further more information and should think it over when it comes to a conclusion.

ltymoonUID: 2685371

改得sharonye

In this argument ,the arguer(和前面的argument有些重复，可以改成Speaker/author) claims that the population of species (这里讲的不准确，是special species)will decline because of the increase in the amount of ultraviolet radiation that reaches the Earth's surface.This conclusion is based on the discovery that the population of a species of salamander that lays its eggs in mountain lakes has declined and the declination is due to the damage of its preventive shells by ultraviolet radiation.However ,the arguer’s assumption suffers from(suffer from这个讲法不太好，但更好的我也暂时没想到~） several critical fallacies.
First of all ,it is known to everyone（据说ETS不喜欢这种句式，不够严谨逻辑） that the earth is keeping on changing , temperatuer,atmonsphere and many other climate tips are always different from one time to another .Climate change is a fatastic power that
could be the cause of the extinction of dinosaurs, let along salamaders’ laying eggs.（个人认为radiation 的增加也算在climate）Although the arguer cited a scientific phenomenon that ultraviolet radiation is damaging to delicate tissues, （其实这点他说得也不充分，可以继续攻击）there is no evidence to show ultraviolet radiation is the only reason that shapes salamaders’ life , maybe salamaders are not adapted to the changed environment near
mountain lakes ,maybe their enemy egxists in mountain lakes and their eggs are always been stolen(people are likely to be one of the stealers) （直接写出来就好了，不要用括号咩~~or maybe they have found a better place for laying and don't want to live here any more(sometimes animals are so claver and lovely ) , the arguer has no right 我也很想写right，但好像用在这儿不合适诶~to say’ it must be the case that the increase in ultraviolet radiation has damaged many salamander eggs and prevented them from hatching.’A famous advertise tells us ‘everything is possible’, isn’t it?额。。。个人观点，要学术，要严谨~
Second , although ultraviolet radiation really dose harm to the eggs , the arguer’s assumption is still unvalidated for it’s false analogy类比？这个用的不太恰当吧~~ .Every specie is different , dinosaur’s extinction 好多恐龙啊= =doesn’t mean human’s exdinction , salamanders’ daclination also can’t decide other species’ destiny ,after all , not all animals lay eggs. What’s more, no laying in mount lakes is not a sufficient evidence ,even an evidence showing the daclination of salamander , this specie is likely to be stronger and stronger in other better places (should we congratulate if so).
Fanally another point which is radiculous是ridiculous咩？ and a common sense
worth considering is that Earth's ozone layer is not the same thin every where ,without knowing the condition of ozone layer above mount lakes ,the arguer’s assumption are all in vain.
In conclusion ,the argument is not entierly well reasoned.If not given imformation that was about expressed in the paragraph,it can’t convince me of anything .建议mm最后一段多扯点，表面是呼应，实际上充字数啊~~

逍遥猫UID: 2851230

好多啊，真厉害

sharonyeUID: 2862009

In this argument, the arguer concludes that population declines in some species on the ground that amount （？看不太明白）of ultraviolet radiation that reaches the Earth's surface has increased which is caused by the industrial pollution has lead the Earth's ozone layer to thin（这句话太长了，中间哟些问题，比如ultraviolet radiation that reaches the Earth's surface has increased which is caused by the industrial pollution has lead the Earth's ozone layer to thin划分句子成分后得到的是ultraviolet radiation has lead the Earth's ozone layer to thin，不太对而且看起来很费力的，建议可以把句子稍微变短一些，O(∩_∩)O~）. 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（我觉得eggs的问题应该放在后面说比较好，应为你后面写到了对egg的影响因素，会比较整齐）. 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 specie 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（用take into account会不会好一些 ）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, 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 bring 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 kinds 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(语法错误，貌似不是很重要), 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.

agnes2010UID: 2794922

顶贴！小组成员加油！

谦行天下UID: 2797557

嘿嘿，anges，你真好！

ltymoonUID: 2685371

修改之后的
In the assertion, the speaker points out that the population of a special kind of salamander declined as the result of ultraviolet radiation. And to take a step further, the speaker avers that reduce in population of other species will certainly fallen stemming from the radiation. The statement seems to be vindicated superficially, however, when I deliberate on this point and then I find it is fallacy to conclude that the ultraviolet radiation gives rise to the fallen population in the species and forecast that other creatures will suffer from the increase in that kind of radiation.

Foremost, the speaker seems to mistake the relationship between the decline in the salamander’s population and the increase in the radiation. It is true that the two evens happen at the same moment, but the proof are not enough to confirm others of the statement. It is possible that they are just coincidence. The population will be influenced by various factors. Perhaps, the decrease is caused by the high temperature, which is known to have an influence on the sexuality on the salamanders and then affect the reproduce activity of the species, or others. The habitat and the creature behavior are so multipart that it is hard to figured out the radiation should be blame for it expects that the speaker provides more information and statics. Moreover, that the radiation is harmful to the eggs doesn’t mean it will lead to population falling. It is perhaps that the salamanders lay the egg in the habitats free from the radiation, or the quantities of eggs is not the cardinal factors to decide the salamander’s population and do little with the decrease. , it doesn’t mean t

Moreover, if the radiation should be blame for the decrease in the population, should it be valid that other species will also be influenced?

It is not certificated that the radiation will damage the eggs rather than has nothing to do with it. Or the eggs of other species have protective shells and prevent themselves against the radiation. Or the species' habitats are so different and far away from the salamander and the radiation there are not so much as that in the salamander's habitats.

In a word, it is unjustified for the speaker to blame the radiation for the reduce in the population 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 substantiate his or her opinion, the speaker needs further more information and should think it over when it comes to a conclusion.

谦行天下UID: 2797557

今天有第二次互改的哟。。。

zuoyedefengUID: 2732970

:victory::)