argument202,高频题，拍拍看，留连接！

bluefiaryUID: 184899

Argument202  第14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：30分15秒     400 words
从2005年2月19日13时44分到2005年2月19日14时30分
------题目------
Humans arrived in the Kaliko Islands about 7,000 years ago, and within 3,000 years most of the large mammal species that had lived in the forests of the Kaliko Islands had become extinct. Yet humans cannot have been a factor in the species' extinctions, because there is no evidence that the humans had any significant contact with the mammals. Further, archaeologists have discovered numerous sites where the bones of fish had been discarded, but they found no such areas containing the bones of large mammals, so the humans cannot have hunted the mammals. Therefore, some climate change or other environmental factor must have caused the species' extinctions.
------正文------
In this argument, the author concludes that some climate change or other environment factor must have caused the mammals' extinction in the Kfaliko Islands. His conclusion is based on the assumption the human beings have no contact with the mammals and no areas containing the bones of large mammals, therefore, the author excludes the roles that human beings may cause the mammals' extinction. However, after thorough analysis and comprehensive consideration, you will see how groundless it is.

The major problem with this conclusion is that the author gratuitously assumes humans cannot have been a factor in the species' extinction merely based on no evidence that the humans had any significant contact with the mammals. However, no contacting with the mammals does not mean they have no impact on them. There may be some indirect ways to lead the mammals' extinction, such as the water pollution, air pollution, deforestation, and so on, all of those factors, if true, would seriously undermine the author's conclusion. Further, it is so long a time that some evidences may be destroyed or dismissed through the generation. It is fallacious to exclude the human factor based on the mere facts that there is no evidence to prove it.

The author also concludes that, since archaeologists have discovered no areas containing the bones of large mammals, humans cannot have hunted the mammals. Yet this evidence also is unwarranted. For one thing, finding no such areas do not mean there are really no places containing large mammals' bones. It is possible archaeologists still cannot found such places. For another, that finding no bones of large mammals does not equal to there not existence of the bones of large mammals. Perhaps the bones of the large mammals could be burned, or humans may alert some of them to be artistic works, or carve to some certain figures. Therefore, without considering and ruling out these possibilities, we cannot safely convince that humans really do not hunt the mammals, consequently cannot accept what the author concludes.

Finally, granted that it is true that humans do not play the role of the mammals' extinction, there is unfounded to assert that it is some climate change or other environment factors that have caused the species' extinction. It is possible other alternatives, such as the imbalance of ecology chain, that may also lead to their extinction. The author commits a hasty generalization of the reasons that cause the extinction.

So all in all, the conclusion is unconvincing as it stands. To strength it, the author needs to investigate whether there is some evidence missed. Further, the author should consider other possible reasons so as to come to his or her conclusion.

zhoulin00001UID: 189304

In this argument, the author concludes that some climate change or other environment factor must have caused the mammals' extinction in the Kfaliko Islands. His conclusion is based on the assumption the human beings have no contact with the mammals and no areas containing the bones of large mammals, therefore, the author excludes the roles that human beings may cause the mammals' extinction. However, after thorough analysis and comprehensive consideration, you will see how groundless it is.

The major problem with this conclusion is that the author gratuitously assumes humans cannot have been a factor in the species' extinction merely based on no evidence that the humans had any significant contact with the mammals. However, no contacting with the mammals does not mean they have no impact on them. There may be some indirect ways to lead the mammals' extinction, such as the water pollution, air pollution, deforestation, and so on, all of those factors, if true, would seriously undermine the author's conclusion. Further, it is so long a time that some evidences may be destroyed or dismissed through the generation. It is fallacious to exclude the human factor based on the mere facts that there is no evidence to prove it.

The author also concludes that, since archaeologists have discovered no areas containing the bones of large mammals, humans cannot have hunted the mammals. Yet this evidence also is unwarranted. For one thing, finding no such areas do not mean there are really no places containing large mammals' bones. It is possible archaeologists still cannot found such places. For another, that finding no bones of large mammals does not equal to there not existence of the bones of large mammals？. Perhaps the bones of the large mammals could be burned, or humans may alert some of them to be artistic works, or carve to some certain figures这个有点勉强. Therefore, without considering and ruling out these possibilities, we cannot safely convince that humans really do not hunt the mammals, consequently cannot accept what the author concludes.

Finally, granted that it is true that humans do not play the role of the mammals' extinction, there is unfounded to assert that it is some climate change or other environment factors that have caused the species' extinction. It is possible other alternatives, such as the imbalance of ecology chain, that may also lead to their extinction. The author commits a hasty generalization of the reasons that cause the extinction. imbalance of ecology chain也算other environment factors吧？？

So all in all, the conclusion is unconvincing as it stands. To strength it, the author needs to investigate whether there is some evidence missed. Further, the author should consider other possible reasons so as to come to his or her conclusion.
看完之后，无比佩服， 无法用言语来表达了，大牛啊！！

bluefiaryUID: 184899

谢谢zhoulin00001的修改，继续改我明天的文章啊，我还有两天就考了，呜呜
我也帮你看看ISSUE