Argument150 一个星期未碰，手生了！欢迎新老朋友赏砖哈！

imjasonUID: 176604

------题目------
The following is a letter to the editor of an environmental magazine.
'The decline in the numbers of amphibians worldwide clearly indicates the global pollution of water and air. Two studies of amphibians in Yosemite National Park in California confirm my conclusion. In 1915 there were seven species of amphibians in the park, and there were abundant numbers of each species. However, in 1992 there were only four species of amphibians observed in the park, and the numbers of each species were drastically reduced. The decline in Yosemite has been blamed on the introduction of trout into the park's waters, 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.'
------正文------
In this letter, the author points out that the numbers of amphibians worldwide has declined. It is true, which the author also realizes, that the global pollution of water and air has contribute to this problem, but what the statement and evidence he/she shows contains several illogical flaws which render the argument unconvincing.

The threshold problem is related to the two studies held in Yosemite National Park in California. As the author provides no further information about both the studies, the results derived from them are dubious. For example, who did the two studies? How have the two studies been processed? Are the results credible or authoritative? Moreover, the two studies may be held at different seasons, that one is in summer in 1915 while the other autumn in 1992, a time that some species are likely to have hibernated. Without such evidence concerning about these aspects, the author's conclusion is also suspect.

Even if the results from the two studies are credible and authoritative, the decline of the species cannot substantiate that it is due to the worldwide pollution, since the author does not supply any statistics and records about the transformation of the environment in Yosemite National Park in California. In this case, there is a probability that the environment remains the same in this area. Additionally, the author also points out that in 1920 the trout has been introduced into this park. It is entirely possible that the decline of the species is due to the introduction in that the trout eat the amphibian eggs. However, at the same time, as we do not see the situation if these trouts are moved away, in which the species may increase, the author cannot draw the conclusion that the introduction of the trout is not the real reason.

Finally, the argument also contains three aspects which reject it out of the conclusion. The first one involves that the author falsely equates the "numbers" and the "species" of the amphibians. Common sense and experience tell me that even though the species of the amphibians has declined, the numbers of them remain the same or even increase. Second, the decline in Yosemite National Park in California cannot sufficiently assumes that the worldwide numbers are also diminished, since the author does not prove that the conditions in this park is fully representative of the world. The third aspect is that throughout the letter, there is no evidence and statistics about the worldwide pollution of water and air as well as the comparison of concrete numbers of the amphibians, which might substantiate the argument. Moreover, the author also neglects other possible effects which may contribute to the decline, such as the migration, the decreasing area of wet lands, the capture by human beings or other creatures.

In sum, this argument is not convincing as it stands. To better strengthen it, the author should provide more evidence about the transformation of the climate as well as the air and water. Moreover, the author also should tell me about the situation if these trout are moved away. To further assess this argument, I also need to know about the changes in the concrete numbers of the worldwide amphibians.

flyingwindUID: 189320

战位！
考完来补砖！

枫丹UID: 166492

哎呀!好象是真的很长时间没见你了!我占位,晚上交!!

imjasonUID: 176604

最初由 枫丹 发布
[B]哎呀!好象是真的很长时间没见你了!我占位,晚上交!! [/B]

哈哈，先谢谢啊！
你的起色很大啊，向你学习... :)

枫丹UID: 166492

In this letter, the author points out that the numbers of amphibians worldwide has declined.（你的这句话，并不是题目的结论只是一个现象。 ） It is true, which the author also realizes, that the global pollution of water and air has contribute to this problem, but what the statement and evidence he/she shows contains several illogical flaws which render the argument unconvincing. （开头不好，没说清楚题目的逻辑关系）

The threshold problem is related to the two studies held in Yosemite National Park in California. As the author provides no further information about both the studies, the results derived from them are dubious. For example, who did the two studies? How have the two studies been processed? Are the results credible or authoritative? Moreover, the two studies may be held at different seasons, that one is in summer in 1915 while the other autumn in 1992, a time that some species are likely to have hibernated. Without such evidence concerning about these aspects, the author's conclusion is also suspect. 我个人不赞成用问句，具体可以再讨论。 因为这样不利于加强逻辑性。

Even if the results from the two studies are credible and authoritative, the decline of the species cannot substantiate that it is due to the worldwide pollution, since the author does not supply any statistics and records about the transformation of the environment in Yosemite National Park in California. In this case, there is a probability that the environment remains the same in this area. Additionally, the author also points out that in 1920 the trout has been introduced into this park. It is entirely possible that the decline of the species is due to the introduction in that the trout eat the amphibian eggs. However, at the same time, as we do not see the situation if these trouts are moved away, in which the species may increase, the author cannot draw the conclusion that the introduction of the trout is not the real reason.
这段问题就大点了。全球worldwide decline.'你又如何解释呢？


Finally, the argument also contains three aspects which reject it out of the conclusion. The first one involves that the author falsely equates the "numbers" and the "species" of the amphibians. Common sense and experience tell me that even though the species of the amphibians has declined, the numbers of them remain the same or even increase. Second, the decline in Yosemite National Park in California cannot sufficiently assumes that the worldwide numbers are also diminished, since the author does not prove that the conditions in this park is fully representative of the world. The third aspect is that throughout the letter, there is no evidence and statistics about the worldwide pollution of water and air as well as the comparison of concrete numbers of the amphibians, which might substantiate the argument. Moreover, the author also neglects other possible effects which may contribute to the decline, such as the migration, the decreasing area of wet lands, the capture by human beings or other creatures.
这段不错的。句子也好。就是感觉论述点过多，不深入。
In sum, this argument is not convincing as it stands. To better strengthen it, the author should provide more evidence about the transformation of the climate as well as the air and water. Moreover, the author also should tell me about the situation if these trout are moved away. To further assess this argument, I also need to know about the changes in the concrete numbers of the worldwide amphibians.
困的不行了。问题是开头部分不好，第三段也不太好。一家之言啊！！

枫丹UID: 166492

我补充一下啊!我刚才重新看了一下六分的范文,发现原来问句的效果如此的厉害,可能你早已经看过了,温习一下吧
More important than invitations to teach elsewhere, which might have been engineered by their own departmental heads in an attempt to remove them from the campus for a semester or two, is the relationship between teacher and student.  Are the teaching faculty approachable?  Are they helpful?  Have they an interest in passing on their knowledge?  Are they working for the future benefit of the student or to get another year closer to retirement?  How enthusiastic are the students about the courses being taught and the faculty members who teach those classes?  Are there sufficient classes available for the number of students?  Are the campus buildings accessible; how is the University handling all those cars?  Is the University a pleasant, encouraging, interesting, challenging place to attend school?  What are its attitudes about education, students, student ideas and innovations, faculty suggestions for improvement?

imjasonUID: 176604

谢谢枫丹哈！
我要好好改正下！

giraUID: 188010

In this letter, the author points out that the numbers of amphibians worldwide has declined. It is true, which the author also realizes, that the global pollution of water and air has contribute to this problem, but what the statement and evidence he/she shows contains several illogical flaws which render the argument unconvincing. 一般我们是通过置疑过程反对结论，所以TS最好直击'The decline in the numbers of amphibians worldwide clearly indicates the global pollution of water and air'
我就要考了感觉还没建立起模板，看来要有意识了，学习!

The threshold problem is related to the two studies held in Yosemite National Park in California. As the author provides no further information about both the studies, the results derived from them are dubious. For example, who did the two studies? How have the two studies been processed? Are the results credible or authoritative? Moreover, the two studies may be held at different seasons, that one is in summer in 1915 while the other autumn in 1992, a time that some species are likely to have hibernated. Without such evidence concerning about these aspects, the author's conclusion is also suspect. 反问排比很好，但最好问得更有抨击力，比如 Have the environment of the park greatly changed? Was there any artificial disturbing in the domain? And moreover, could the result in Y Park represent the global change that recorded somewhere else in the world? 而像who did the two studies? 这样的问题力量就弱一些

Even if the results from the two studies are credible and authoritative, the decline of the species cannot substantiate that it is due to the worldwide pollution, since the author does not supply any statistics and records about the transformation of the environment in Yosemite National Park in California. In this case, there is a probability that the environment remains the same in this area. Additionally, the author also points out that in 1920 the trout has been introduced into this park. It is entirely possible that the decline of the species is due to the introduction in that the trout eat the amphibian eggs. However, at the same time, as we do not see the situation if these trouts 鱼摆摆不可数？ are moved away, in which the species may increase, the author cannot draw the conclusion that the introduction of the trout is not the real reason. 还可以说even trout和amphibian之间的关系需要evidence证明，或者提到还可能有其它类似的生物或人为原因。。

Finally, the argument also contains three aspects which reject it out of the conclusion. The first one involves that the author falsely equates the "numbers" and the "species" of the amphibians. Common sense and experience tell me that even though the species of the amphibians has declined, the numbers of them remain the same or even increase. Second, the decline in Yosemite National Park in California cannot sufficiently assumes that the worldwide numbers are also diminished, since the author does not prove that the conditions in this park is fully representative of the world. The third aspect is that throughout the letter, there is no evidence and statistics about the worldwide pollution of water and air as well as the comparison of concrete numbers of the amphibians, which might substantiate the argument. Moreover, the author also neglects other possible effects which may contribute to the decline, such as the migration, the decreasing area of wet lands, the capture by human beings or other creatures.

In sum, this argument is not convincing as it stands. To better strengthen it, the author should provide more evidence about the transformation of the climate as well as the air and water. Moreover, the author also should tell me tell “me”? about the situation if these trout are had moved away. To further assess this argument, I also need to know about the changes in the concrete numbers of the worldwide amphibians. 你先前提到的survey可信性、Y和全球的关系。。在最后的better strengthen中都应该提到，前后呼应也节省时间：）
＋U，我29,比你先啊

imjasonUID: 176604

谢谢gira了，这篇确实有好多自己没考虑清楚，认真改正了