argument46 830狂拍站队

luxuryUID: 2124715

argument 46  以前写的,帮忙拍拍吧,南京7.29考过....总次数12次


By citing a nineteenth century explorer's account and a recent research into the language and legends of the Innu ,the arguer conclude that there probably were grizzly bears in Labrador, and the explorer's account probably accurately identified the bear. However, the arguer’s dispute relies on a series of unverified assumptions and is therefore unpersuasive as it stands.

To begin with, the arguer assumes that there probably were grizzly bears in Labrador just on account of that the recent research indicates that their language has two different kinds of bears and their legends describe the diverse characteristics of the alternative of bears. Yet the assumption amount to scant evidence to increase the reliability. On grounds of the legends, it just indicates that there were two different kinds of the bears, nevertheless there is no evidence regarding these two bears are black bears and grizzly bears. It is possible that they are other two bears that have been extinct long before. And as the legends said that they also attribute different characteristics of the two kinds of bears, however no reason attributed to say that they are the black bear's and grizzly bear's characteristics at all.


Furthermore, even if the two kinds of bears are the conclusion said, yet we can not conclude that they are all come from the western of Canadian-Labrador. The arguer overlooks that the ancient people prefer traveling, and it is entirely possible that they traveled from the west to the east where they found the grizzly bears .Since the argument could not give the information concerning where the ancient people found the two kinds of bears, it cannot convince me that there probably were grizzly bears in the province of Labrador.


Another assumption is that on basis of the explorer's account he or she come to the conclusion ,it is also unwarranted just because that the arguer does not consider when and where the exploring happened. Perhaps that the location is the forest where there were so many trees that there was not enough light to see the appearance of the bears; Or perhaps that the time  is the afternoon even the night ,if true ,the explorer's account is more convincible . Moreover, in that dangerous place and time ,the explorer did not have the enough time to have a aborative look at the bears ,and the grizzly bears have a similar color with  the black bears. In short, without ruling out all of the possibilities, the arguer cannot convince me of the conclusion just because of the problematic explorer's account.


As it stands, the recommendation can be rejected out of hand just on accounts that the evidence cited in the analysis does not lend strong support to what arguer maintains. To strengthen the conclusion ,the arguer should provide better evidence that what the legend said indeed are the black bears and grizzly bears and where the legend happened is the province of Labrador; Another evidence needed is that  when the exploring happened ,what the explorer seen is the grizzly bear.

bonafide1978UID: 208070

argument46 830狂拍站队

argument 46  以前写的,帮忙拍拍吧,南京7.29考过....总次数12次


By citing a nineteenth century explorer's account and a recent research into the language and legends of the Innu ,the arguer conclude that there probably were grizzly bears in Labrador, and the explorer's account probably accurately identified the bear. However, the arguer’s dispute relies on a series of unverified assumptions and is therefore unpersuasive as it stands.

To begin with, the arguer assumes that there probably were grizzly bears in Labrador just on account of　 that the recent research indicates that their language has two different kinds of bears and their legends describe the diverse characteristics of the alternative of bears. Yet the assumption amount　（amounts to） to scant evidence to increase the reliability. On grounds of the legends, it just indicates that there were two different kinds of the (omit it) bears, nevertheless there is no evidence regarding these two bears are black bears and grizzly bears. It is possible that they are other two bears that have been extinct long before. And as the legends said that they also attribute different characteristics of the two kinds of bears, however no reason attributed to say that they are the black bear's and grizzly bear's characteristics at all.

On the account of 对吗？它是副词性短语啊。
另外，是不是引用的时候也是要用一般现在时，而不是用过去时态
我感觉是罗嗦了一点吧。

Furthermore, even if the two kinds of bears are the conclusion said　（even assuming that there are two kinds of bears as the arguer shows）, yet we can not conclude that they are all come (coming) from the western of Canadian-Labrador.(两个分句，去掉yet) The arguer overlooks that the ancient people prefer traveling, and it is entirely possible that they traveled from the west to the east where they found the grizzly bears .Since the argument could not give the information concerning where the ancient people found the two kinds of bears, it cannot convince me that there probably were grizzly bears in the province of Labrador.
句子还需要修饰

Another assumption is that on basis of the explorer's account he or she come to the conclusion ,it is also unwarranted just because that the arguer does not consider when and where the exploring happened很别扭啊. Perhaps that the location is the forest where there were so many trees that there was not enough light to see the appearance of the bears; Or perhaps that the time  is the afternoon even the night ,if true ,the explorer's account is more convincible　（是不是说反了啊） . Moreover, in that dangerous place and time ,the explorer did not have the enough time to have a　（an） aborative look at the bears ,and the grizzly bears have a similar color with  the black bears. In short, without ruling out all of the possibilities, the arguer cannot convince me of the conclusion just because of the problematic explorer's account.

Last but not least, another assumption attributable to the explorer's account is also unwarranted, because arguer does not consider when and where the exploration happened


As it stands, the recommendation can be rejected out of hand just on accounts that the evidence cited in the analysis does not lend strong support to what arguer maintains. To strengthen the conclusion ,the arguer should provide better evidence that what the legend said indeed are the black bears and grizzly bears and where the legend happened is the province of Labrador; Another evidence needed is that  when the exploring happened ,what the explorer seen is the grizzly bear.


逻辑基本上没有问题啊，

我也是南京的，9.1号，同上路啊！

luxuryUID: 2124715

By citing a nineteenth century explorer's account and a recent research into the language and legends of the Innu ,the arguer conclude that there probably were grizzly bears in Labrador, and the explorer's account probably accurately identified the bear. However, the arguer’s dispute relies on a series of unverified assumptions and is therefore unpersuasive as it stands.

To begin with, the arguer assumes that there probably were grizzly bears in Labrador just on account of　 that[的确是adv,但是我后面跟的是that 从句啊,不知道对否?] the recent research indicates that their language has two different kinds of bears and their legends describe the diverse characteristics of the alternative of bears. Yet the assumption amount　（amounts to）[我这两篇都这错误,郁闷,一写起来就顾不上了,努力中] to scant evidence to increase the reliability.[你知道这个句型对不对?amount to 到底是怎么用的?是动词性词组?] On grounds of[对吗?我查不出来,还是改成on the basis of]the legends, it just indicates that there were two different kinds of the (omit it)[re] bears, nevertheless there is no evidence regarding these two bears are black bears and grizzly bears. It is possible that they are other two bears that have been extinct long before. [And as the legends said that they also attribute different characteristics of the two kinds of bears, however no reason attributed to say that they are the black bear's and grizzly bear's characteristics at all.这句改成So does the bear’s characteristics ,as discussed before.或者直接不要了吧？可以吗？我也感觉好罗嗦]

On the account of 对吗？它是副词性短语啊。
另外，是不是引用的时候也是要用一般现在时，而不是用过去时态[这点我也不明白，谁给解答一下啊，就以这个文章为例子，时态该怎么用呢？]
我感觉是罗嗦了一点吧。

Furthermore, even if the two kinds of bears are the conclusion said　（even assuming that there are two kinds of bears as the arguer shows）, yet[该去] we can not conclude that they are all come (coming)[哎，杂办呢？全错了] from the western of Canadian-Labrador.(两个分句，去掉yet) The arguer overlooks[the possibility ] that the ancient people prefer traveling, and it is entirely possible that they traveled from the west to the east where they found the grizzly bears .[Since the argument could not give the information concerning where the ancient people found the two kinds of bears, it cannot convince me that there probably were grizzly bears in the province of Labrador. This scenario, if true, would serve to undermine the conclusion as put forward before.]
句子还需要修饰

Another assumption is that on basis of[on the basis of ,owing to ,due to , take into consideration ,take into account ] the explorer's account he or she come to the conclusion ,[yet好像没连词啊]it is also unwarranted just because that the arguer does not consider when and where the exploring happened很别扭啊[实在不知道怎么改了]. Perhaps that the location is the forest where there were so many trees that there was not enough light to see the appearance of the bears; Or perhaps that the time  is the afternoon even the night ,if true ,the explorer's account is more convincible[inconvincible]　（是不是说反了啊） . Moreover, in that dangerous place and time ,the explorer did not have the enough time to have a　（an） aborative look at the bears ,and the grizzly bears have a similar color with  the black bears. In short, without ruling out all of the possibilities, the arguer cannot convince me of the conclusion just because of the problematic explorer's account.



As it stands, the recommendation can be rejected out of hand just on accounts that the evidence cited in the analysis does not lend strong support to what arguer maintains. To strengthen the conclusion ,the arguer should provide better evidence that what the legend said indeed are the black bears and grizzly bears and where the legend happened is the province of Labrador; Another evidence needed is that  when the exploring happened ,what the explorer seen is the grizzly bear.


逻辑基本上没有问题啊，

我也是南京的，9.1号，同上路啊！