Argument 69, 基本错误已修改。请大家多多指正。谢谢

蓝清UID: 158106

------正文------Argument69  第18篇 让砖头来得更猛烈些吧！
------摘要------
作者：寄托家园作文版普通用户     共用时间：46分30秒     553 words
从2005年1月20日8时34分到2005年1月20日9时46分
------题目------
Yellow-legged frogs were once common in high-altitude lakes in the Sierra Nevada mountains, but they have become increasingly rare. Trout feed on tadpoles and young frogs. Few lakes in the Sierra Nevada had any trout in them until a hundred years ago. At that time, many lakes were stocked with trout for recreational fishing, and now trout are common in virtually all bodies of water in the Sierra Nevada. Researchers removed the trout from one lake, and the frog population soon quadrupled. Since frogs are capable of moving several miles over land, removing trout from just a few lakes is clearly the way to restore the frog population to its former levels.
------正文------
In this argument, the arguer recommends that removing trout from just a few lakes is clearly the way to restore the frog population to its former level. To justify this conclusion, the arguer provided several facts which make the argument seems logical, however, after careful examination, we can find that the arguer makes several problematic assumptions which make the recommendation not persuasive..

The critical problem of this argument is the gratuitous assumption that it is necessary to restore the frog population to its former levels. With no information about how common the yellow-legged frogs once were and how rare they have become, we can not rule out the possibility that the number were once too large and the decline is a good tendency, just like the wide rabbits once overrun in the continent of Australia, because the number were so large that they made the glass for feeding the sheep dramatically rare and seriously destroyed the continent, in the end the government introduced a kind of mosquito as a carrier of a virus disease to control the population the rabbit.

The arguer fails to establish a causal relationship between introduction of the trout and the decline in number of the frog. Though the trout feed on tadpoles and young frogs, it is possible that it is the decline in the proportion of adult frogs that cause the decrease in the total number. What's more, the author fails to consider other alternatives such as the climate, the environment and the hunting. It is possible that it is possible that more and more high-altitude lakes in the Sierra Nevada mountains are becoming drying and at least with no water at all. The local environment may become very seriously polluted, the pollution of the local water bodies and the acid rain can also cause the decline in the number of the frog. What's more, we can not rule out the possibility that the hunting for the frog is becoming increased, especially the hunting for the adult frogs.

Even if it is true the trout have seriously decreased the frog population, and it is now necessary to restore it to its former levels, this can not warrant that removing trout from just a few lakes should be the way. With no information about the procedure of the research, we have good reason to doubt its representative and credibility. If there are many different kinds of  lakes in this area, with different micro-environment, with different number of trout, in this case, the one lake is not  likely to be representative. What's more, we can not rule the possibility that they researchers have taken some other measures besides removing the trout from the lake, such as improving the quality of the water, stopping the hunting for the frog. With no information about how the number of the frog in the lake quadrupled, it is possible that no increased frogs were from other lakes for the distance between the local high-altitude mountains are too far for the frog to move from one lake to another.

To sum up, the arguer fails to make a convincing recommendation. To strengthen the argument, the arguer should have to provide evidence that the number of the frog is so seriously decreased that it is necessary to take measures to restore it to the former levels. Additionally, the arguer should provide evidence to rule out the possibility that the decline is caused by some other alternatives besides the trout. What's more, the arguer should provide evidence to show that moving the trout from just a few of the lakes will be enough.

还有一个多月就要考试了，argument的提纲还没完成三分之一，全文还就这水平，希望大家多多指教。 issue 还没正经写过， 开学了还要上课，而且还得给别人上课。狂晕，郁闷, 奋斗ing .

鬼谷子UID: 159645

似乎时间超了
我占一个吧

蓝清UID: 158106

先谢谢斑竹了。
对啊，写到中间被打断了。不过正常情况下也会超过5分钟左右，而且还是以前看过的题目。光是速度就还得努力。急啊.......

joeshebeUID: 196393

time out,我也是这个毛病

joeshebeUID: 196393

写得不错，思路清晰，语言简练，除了个别基本语法错误。。。

蓝清UID: 158106

希望有更为详细的修改意见呢。期待中。。。

鬼谷子UID: 159645

------正文------Argument69 第18篇 让砖头来得更猛烈些吧！
------摘要------
作者：寄托家园作文版普通用户 共用时间：46分30秒 553 words
从2005年1月20日8时34分到2005年1月20日9时46分
------题目------
Yellow-legged frogs were once common in high-altitude lakes in the Sierra Nevada mountains, but they have become increasingly rare. Trout feed on tadpoles and young frogs. Few lakes in the Sierra Nevada had any trout in them until a hundred years ago. At that time, many lakes were stocked with trout for recreational fishing, and now trout are common in virtually all bodies of water in the Sierra Nevada. Researchers removed the trout from one lake, and the frog population soon quadrupled. Since frogs are capable of moving several miles over land, removing trout from just a few lakes is clearly the way to restore the frog population to its former levels.
------正文------
In this argument, the arguer recommends that removing trout from just a few lakes is clearly the way to restore the frog population to its former level. To justify this conclusion, the arguer provided several facts which make the argument seems 【该是seem】logical, however, after careful examination, we can find that the arguer makes several problematic assumptions which make the recommendation not persuasive. 【.我觉得其实argument的开头部分也应该着重论述你的观点的，我觉得判卷人会更喜欢看到明确的观点而不是只是说“题目错了”而已。当然大部分的范文都是这样的模式，但是我不是很赞同这样的模式，这样会使你的观点不突出。我觉得可以简述一下到底哪些方面错了，或者提出一些改进的意见（这个部分不一定是在放在结尾段的）。其实，总领和总结的内容应该使差不多的，可以在你写完了body之后，构思出来这样的部分，然后用不同的语言表达以后分别放在开头和结尾。当然，如果时间允许的话:D】

The critical problem of this argument is the gratuitous assumption that it is necessary to restore the frog population to its former levels. With no information about how common the yellow-legged frogs once were and how rare they have become, we can not rule out the possibility that the number were once too large and the decline is a good tendency, just like the wide rabbits once overrun in the continent of Australia, because the number were so large that they made the glass for feeding the sheep dramatically rare and seriously destroyed the continent, in the end the government introduced a kind of mosquito as a carrier of a virus disease to control the population the rabbit. 【good point & good example】

The arguer fails to establish a causal relationship between introduction of the trout and the decline in number of the frog. Though the trout feed on tadpoles and young frogs, it is possible that it is the decline in the proportion of adult frogs that cause the decrease in the total number. What's more, the author fails to consider other alternatives such as the climate, the environment and the hunting【我觉得hunt用在青蛙上面不合适】. It is possible that it is possible that【？？检查啊】 more and more high-altitude lakes in the Sierra Nevada mountains are becoming drying【dry】 and at least with no water at all. 【至少一点水都没有了？？你想说的是at least 或者是at least contain not enough water？】 The local environment may become very seriously polluted, the pollution of the local water bodies and the acid rain can also cause the decline in the number of the frog. What's more, 【用过了，换一个】we can not rule out the possibility that the hunting for the frog is becoming increased, especially the hunting for the adult frogs. 【反驳的不错，不过hunt应该换一下】

Even if it is true the trout have seriously decreased the frog population, and it is now necessary to restore it to its former levels, this can not 【你前面说了两件事，这里不该用单数的，或者你可以说，still。。。can not be warranted】warrant that removing trout from just a few lakes should be the way. With no information about the procedure of the research, we have good reason to doubt its representative【名词是代表的意思，用typicality】 and credibility. 【觉得你这里像是在反驳Researchers removed the trout from one lake这个实验没有典型性和可信度，而你这段TS反驳的是题目的结论】 If there are many different kinds of lakes in this area, with different micro-environment, with different number of trout, in this case, the one lake is not likely to be representative. What's more, 【可以换成furthermore，moreover】we can not rule 【out】the possibility that they researchers have taken some other measures besides removing the trout from the lake, such as improving the quality of the water, stopping the hunting for the frog. 【显然，这些内容都是在反驳Researchers removed the trout from one lake的实验】With no information about how the number of the frog in the lake quadrupled, it is possible that no increased frogs were from other lakes for the distance between the local high-altitude mountains are too far for the frog to move from one lake to another.
【这段的内容有点混乱了，你的TS要反驳的是题目的结论，就是从a few lakes赶走鲑鱼可以让青蛙的数量恢复原来的水平。而后面却是在反驳Researchers removed the trout from one lake的实验的问题。不应该混在一起说的】


To sum up, the arguer fails to make a convincing recommendation. To strengthen the argument, the arguer should have to provide evidence that the number of the frog is so seriously decreased that it is necessary to take measures to restore it to the former levels. Additionally, the arguer should provide evidence to rule out the possibility that the decline is caused by some other alternatives besides the trout. What's more, the arguer should provide evidence to show that moving the trout from just a few of the lakes will be enough.

【总体上面语言还不错，思路也不错，除了B3，基本的问题都反驳到了，而且考虑的很细致，很多的反例举的也不错。不过，语言可以更多变一点，看到你一直在用“What's more”:D加油！】