argument150 【1106G】gelivable小组 第4次作业

315556264UID: 2726000

According to this argument, the author concludes that the decline in the numbers of amphibians worldwide is due to the global pollution of water and air. To support his/her conclusion, the author cites two studies of amphibians in Yosemite National Park (YNP) in California. Close examination of this supporting evidence, finds it give little support to the conclusion.

To begin with, the decline in the numbers of amphibians in YNP does not necessary indicate that the decrease is also appearing in the other part of the world. It is entirely possible that the global number of amphibians is increased. Hence, without more information about the condition of the development of amphibians, the author cannot convince me that the numbers of global amphibians are decreased.

In addition, the author doesn't give any credible evidence to justify the introduction of trout into the park's water has no impact to the existence of amphibians. Lacking such evidence, it is possible that truly due to the eating of amphibian eggs by trout rather than the pollution, the numbers of amphibians decreased sharply.

Further, even if the introduction of trout is not the major factor that lead to the decline of amphibians, the author assumes that the pollution of water and air play an important role of the decline. The author overlooks other factors, such as the change of weather, which may contribute to the diminishment of amphibians. Thus, if the author cannot rule out other possible reasons and explanations, it is hard for me to accept the assumption based on the mere fact.


finally，even if the decline in the numbers of amphibians in YPK is indeed due to the bad condition of environment and the numbers of amphibians in the world are also decreased, this single sample is insufficient draw the general conclusion that the worldwide decline is result from pollution of water and air. Perhaps, in other place in the world, the decrease of amphibians is contributed to the hunt of amphibians or the loss of habitat. Thus, lacking reliable information to exclude those possible factors, the conclusion is still untenable.

In sum, the argument lacks many crucial information and rely on some dubious assumptions. To strengthen the argument, the author must give the existence information of amphibians in the world. To better assess this argument, the author should also give credible evidence to rule out other possible reasons which can lead to decline of the numbers of amphibians in YPK and globe.

kidsonxianUID: 3001754

1# 315556264

我的天啊，你读题目不能太匆忙啊！！！明显太紧张了，题目都没有读好；还有，有些本末倒置，后边finally那段和further那段能写到点子上了，但是这是最重要的两段，大可写在前边，而不是放在后边；老外喜欢开门见山，中国人却信奉宝物沉底；


看逻辑链吧：
黄石公园今年amphibian数目、种类下降-----（骚扰因素，原文插入了trout这个东西，说trout可能是影响黄石公园amphibian的因素，后来又证明了trout对世界范围没有影响，这纯粹是为了影响考生的）-----黄石公园的种类减少和空气污染、水污染有关-----结论：空气污染、水污染是影响全球amphibian的数量；

请楼主注意一下，人家都说了，全球amphibian的数目是下降的，你第二段写神马啊？？还有第三段，你说公园amphibian数目减少可能只跟trout的引入有关，而不一定与水、空气的污染有关；这点大家都知道，也不用你说，你要说的，要集中在缺少水污染、空气污染与amphibian种类的直接关系；具体来说是这样的，首先要有水污染、空气污染的证据；而且要有水污染、空气污染对amphibian的影响，因为可能水污染、空气污染不会造成amphibian的影响；再次，要证明水污染、空气污染对amphibian的影响比trout大；当然，只证明了黄石公园的这点是不够的，因为结论是全球；这里，可以批判例子的特殊性，可以说全球的地区、气候的差异性，可以说物种变化的规律等等；

从逻辑框架来说，最好先写到即使黄石公园真的数目下降，对全球来说都是没有逻辑依据的；然后批判黄石公园的数目下降的逻辑，因为数目下降涉及因素太多，没有说是任何因素必然影响的；记住从逻辑链的末端处开始批判，而且最好不要批神马可靠性啊，时效性啊那些~~而是抓住逻辑的推导过程犯的错误~~

315556264UID: 2726000

2# kidsonxian   
楼上指导的是~我太马虎了，题都没读懂~但我还不太清楚为什么不能讨论trout~

kidsonxianUID: 3001754

3# 315556264


不是不能讨论trout，而是trout明摆着就是两栖动物的影响因素，硬要说它是比较小的影响因素也行，可以放在第三段去讨论；而且就算你讨论了trout，对结论的逻辑削弱也不强；最多就是说trout对黄石公园两栖动物的影响~~