argu 78 没列过提纲直接上来写的，超时15min.....

fany_5042UID: 2873723

有拍必回！
TOPIC:ARGUMENT78 - The following appeared in a letter to the editor of anarchaeological magazine.

"Archaeologistsexcavated(挖掘)acave that had been inhabited by prehistoric people for thousands of years.These people hunted wild animals, many of whose bones were found at levelscorresponding to different times of habitation. Most of the bones at the oldestlevels, over 40,000 years old, were from a deerspecies whose modern-day descendants are known to prefer woodland habitats,whereas most of the bones at more recent levels, dating from 30,000 to 10,000years ago, were from a gazelle specieswhose modern-day descendants are known to prefer grasslands. We can thusconclude that the climate of the area changed dramatically between 40,000 and30,000 years ago, causing the terrain to change from woodland tograssland."



Inthis letter, the writer concludesthat the weather pattern changed dramatically in the area sometime between30,000 years ago and 20,000 years ago, thus causing the terrain to change fromwoodland to grassland. To substantiate his view, the writer gives examples concerningtwo species that are generally believed to reside duringthe time period mentioned. By arguing that their descendants today havedifferent preferencesfor habitats, the writer assumes that they also possessed these differentpreferences and uses this as an evidence to substantiate his assumption thatweather pattern here changed sometime between 30,000 years ago and 20,000 yearsago. However, I have found several flaws in his line of reasoning.

Tobegin with, the arguer merely bases his assumption on the findings from a cave.And yet we're not sure whether this cave can be representative of the overallcondition of ancient residents here.
Inthe absence of more evidences that can illustrate the representativeness of thecave, we cannot taken it for granted that the cave found in the place can berepresentative of it.

Secondly,by pointing out that ancient people here made a living by hunting animals forfood, the writer is telling us, no matter whether his aware of this or not,that the bones found here belong to the animals that have been hunted here, inthe place in question. However, close scrutiny reveals another two flaws. Onone hand, without firm evidence to prove that these bones belong to the animalshunted, we have good reason to believe that they might be the goods that havebeen traded to the people living here by some other tribes. On the other hand,granted that they're actually acquired by ancient local residents from huntinganimals here, we still don't know whether they really belong to the animals inquestion. Since the writer provides no evidence to rectify these two flaws, the argument isfurther rendered unconvincing.

Thirdly,granted that all the flaws above mentioned are rectified (that the cave foundcan be representative of the overall condition, the bones found in the cavereally belong to the two kinds of animals in question), the conclusion is stillflawed in that it fails to take into consideration the fact that many factors relatedto animals' choice of habitats might have changed dramatically during the longtime span mentioned in the argument. Then it is entirely possible the deertoday, for example, that prefer woodland might not be so 30,000 years ago.Climate changes, geographical changes that might force them to change theirhabitat choice from something else to woodland in search of food and water canbe the other possible explanations, which is to saythey might not prefer woodland long time ago. To be specific, we have goodreason to believe, in the absence of evidence to prove not, that they used toprefer grassland as ideal habitat and this assumption would do nothing to justifythe author’s claim but to undermine its credibility.

Evenif we acknowledge that terrain here really changed from woodland to grasslandthousands of years ago, is it only because of the climate change or thecombination of several possible reasons? As we all know, changes in the terrainand the plants growing on itmight probably result from the climate change, since insufficient rain fallsmay cause the plants to die and thus change the geographical appearance of theland. And yet other possible reasons, including the sudden outburst of naturaldisasters like floods and volcano eruptions can also be explanations. Furthermore, it is entirelypossible that the animals here posed too much pressure on the naturalenvironment and what they were fed on hadbeen wiped out simply because too many of the animals eat too much of it, which leads to its extinction even before it canreproduce itself.

Tosum up, the article is flawed in that the assumption it is based on isunwarranted and necessary information is lacking to justify the author’s manyassumptions. To better persuade readers, he will have to prove that the cavecan be representative and that the bones found in the cave belong to the twokinds of animals in question. To further evaluate this article, I would alsolike to know whether any natural disasters that can totally reshape the topography(地貌)
happened during the time periodmentioned.

clairolUID: 2253814

有个大问题，注意空格啊！

fany_5042UID: 2873723

有个大问题，注意空格啊！
clairol 发表于 2010-8-6 22:54

求详情！你是说标点之后的空格还是单词之间的啊？
标点之后我都是空一格，不知道对不对。。
单词之间的问题，可能是粘贴上来的时候格式变化了吧

fany_5042UID: 2873723

求各种牛人拍！难道因为我是新人就这么冷清的.....

wdx19861106UID: 2821198

1# fany_5042
In this letter, the writer concludes that the weather pattern changed dramatically in the area sometime between30, 000 years ago and 20,000years ago（和原文不太符合吧？“40,000 and30, 000 years ago”）, thus causing the terrain to change from woodland to grassland. To substantiate his view, the writer gives examples concerning two species that are generally believed to reside during the time period mentioned（感觉还是直接说出：两个物种现在的生存环境）. By arguing that their descendants today have different preferences for habitats, the writer assumes that they also possessed these different preferences and uses this as an evidence to substantiate his assumption that weather pattern here changed sometime between 30,000 years ago and 20,000 years ago. However, I have found several flaws in his line of reasoning.（感觉中间大部分可以简化，直接说arguer 的证据，不然太长了。。。。）
To begin with, the arguer merely bases his assumption on the findings from a cave. And yet we're not sure whether this cave can be representative of the overall condition of ancient residents here. In the absence of more evidences that can illustrate the representativeness of the cave, we cannot take it for granted that the cave found in the place can be representative of it.（感觉叙述太简了，感觉没实质内容，你可以将你为什么怀疑他例出来或举个例子证明你的观点。）
Secondly, by pointing out that ancient people here made a living by hunting animals for food, the writer is telling us, no matter whether his aware of this or not, that the bones found here belong to the animals that have been hunted here, in the place in question. However, close scrutiny reveals another two flaws. On one hand, without firm evidence to prove that these bones belong to the animal shunted, we have good reason to believe that they might be the goods that have been traded to the people living here by some other tribes. On the other hand, granted that they're actually acquired by ancient local residents from hunting animals here, we still don't know whether they really belong to the animals（感觉这个点找的不太好，貌似攻击的没力度。） in question. Since the writer provides no evidence to rectify these two flaws, the argument is further rendered unconvincing.
Thirdly, granted that all the flaws above mentioned are rectified (that the cave found can be representative of the overall condition, the bones found in the cave really belong to the two kinds of animals in question), the conclusion is still flawed in that it fails to take into consideration the fact that many factors related to animals' choice of habitats might have changed dramatically during the longtime span mentioned in the argument. Then it is entirely possible the deer today, for example, that prefer woodland might not be so 30,000 years ago. Climate changes, geographical changes that might force them to change their habitat choice from something else to woodland in search of food and water can be the other possible explanations, which is to say they might not prefer woodland long time ago. To be specific, we have good reason to believe, in the absence of evidence to prove not（删除）that they used to prefer grassland as ideal habitat and this assumption would do nothing to justify the author’s claim but to undermine its credibility.
Even if we acknowledge that terrain here really changed from woodland to grassland thousands of years ago, is it only because of the climate change or the combination of several possible reasons? As we all know, changes in the terrain and the plants growing on it might probably result from the climate change, since insufficient rain falls may cause the plants to die and thus change the geographical appearance of the land. And yet other possible reasons, including the sudden outburst of natural disasters like floods and volcano eruptions can also be explanations. Furthermore, it is entirely possible that the animals here posed too much pressure on the natural environment and what they were fed on had been wiped out simply because too many of the animals eat too much of it, which leads to its extinction even before it can reproduce itself.(结尾不太好，感觉你没和你的观点联系上，要再补充点什么将动物的灭绝和argument 联系在一起。说明不是因为气候引起的terrain 的变化。)

To sum up, the article is flawed in that the assumption it is based on is unwarranted and necessary information is lacking to justify the author’s many assumptions. To better persuade readers, he will have to prove that the cave can be representative and that the bones found in the cave belong to the two kinds of animals in question. To further evaluate this article, I would also like to know whether any natural disasters that can totally reshape the topography(地貌)happened during the time period mentioned.



不好意思，有点晚了。请谅解。

建议你可以多帮别人改，然后别人回，或只是看别人的文章补充自己的观点。