argument150 【1106G】gelivable小组 第4次作业 NEW

MrTomUID: 2904037

结论G： The worldwide decline indicates the global pollution of water and air.


证据A：In 1915 there were seven species of amphibians in the park, and there were abundant numbers of each species.

证据B：However, in 1992 there were only four species of amphibians observed in the park, and the numbers of each species were drastically reduced.


两次观察的条件可能完全不同。

证据C：The decline in Yosemite has been blamed on the introduction of trout into the park’s water, which began in 1920 (trout are known to eat amphibian eggs). But the introduction of trout cannot be the real reason for the Yosemite decline because it does not explain the worldwide decline.


因为the introduction of trout解释不了the worldwide decline，所以它也不是The Yosemite decline的真正原因。

证据D：The decline in the numbers of amphibians worldwide


隐含条件E：除了水和空气的污染没有其他因素


A+B+C+D+E -> G

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

The editor claims that the global pollution of water and air could be reflected clearly from the decline in the numbers of amphibians worldwide. To support the argument, he provides two studies, one is about the decline of amphibian in Yosemite National Park, and another is the analysis of the real reason behind the Yosemite decline. But his conclusion is flawed in several aspects.




First of all, the editor fails to prove the correlation between the worldwide decline of amphibians and the pollution of water and air. And there just are too many parameters which could influence the decline. For instance, most kinds of amphibians require the habitat of half land half water, but the global warming which results in sinking the suitable habitats into water damaged their living conditions thus threatened their numbers. Another alternative explanation could be unusual global climate changes which are actually happening now. Without providing any detail information about the pollution of water and air and considering other parameters, the editor's conclusion is not cogent.




Moreover, the validity of the two studies is doubtful because they didn't mention the conditions of the observation such as date or specific places. It is possible that the study in 1915 was done during summer while the later one during winter when most of the amphibians are hibernated. Or, the former one was done in a place in the park where both the numbers and the kinds of amphibians are high while the later one chose a place where few amphibians available. These could be explanations for the Yosemite decline and if that so, there would be no evidence to prove the numbers of amphibians are indeed decreased and the comparison between 1915 and 1992 is meaningless.  




Finally, even if we accept the Yosemite decline. Since the factor of trout is, in fact, a special local case which of course can't be responsible for the global decline does not necessarily equal to that it has nothing to do with the Yosemite decline. According to the studies which mentioned in the magazine, it is true that they introduced trout into the water in Yosemite Park and trout are capable of eating amphibians' eggs. Thereby, the factor of trout more or less has to be part of the reasons. On the other side, the global case may has various reasons as I mentioned before. The false logic of the editor is that he assumes that the Yosemite decline and the global case have the same reasons.




To sum up, if the editor wants to strengthen the conclusion, he would better pay attention to other factors which cause the global incline, carefully examine the details of the studies and make it clear that local environment dose not equal to global one.

luohuiroseUID: 2995407

https://bbs.gter.net/viewthread.php?tid=1229166&extra=

颜色和下划线都无法显示，上Q的话 我把word发给你吧