argument150 两西动物数量减少，留连互拍(sally)

sallyxinduUID: 2131253

150The 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."

提纲
1.        两个Studies有问题。季节，调查是否有效，准确，公园的规模的环境。
2.        即使下降，也不能排除是Trout造成的。即使不是Trout造成的，也不能说一定是polllution造成的
3.        即使是pollution也不能代表全球趋势。

正文，
The argument seems to be plausible at first glance, in order to back up the arguer's ratiocination, he cites two studies concerning the issue. Upon a closer scrutiny, however, some fallacies concealed in the argument will be unvailed in that the write fails to take into consideration other factors which may bear the immediate interest to the underlying occasion of decline in the numbers of amphibians.

One threshold problem is that we have sound reason to doubt the credibility of the two studies. Consider, if the study in 1915 was conducted in summer while 1992 study was carried out in winter,when most of the amphibians hibernate, the outcomes by all means would be different(number of species in 1992 outnumbering that in 1915) because when animals hibernate, they cannot be detected by scientists. Consequently, 1992’s study result enjoys a superiority over 1915 in number. The possiblity also existes that the park’s environment in 1915 differs from that in 1992. In turn, the number of amphibians varies accordingly. Without rulling out all the likelihoods, we couldnot be convinced that the studies are dependable enough to bolster the arguer’s conclusion.

Concession granted that the studies are credible enough to confirm the authors’ conclusion that the number of amphibians drops down sharply, there still lies the possibility that trout shoud be blamed for the decline, considering trouts’ inclination of eating amphibian’s eggs. Deep down, even though trouts are not the culprit of decress of amphibian’s number, it’s too arbitray to attribute the reason to pollution of water and air. In most events, besides pollution, other alternatives, say, climate, evolution of epecies and so forth all may have bearings on the outcome. As a result, in the aspect, the arguer never furnishes us with a shred of strong evidence to demonstrate the causality between the amphibians’ decline in number and pollution of water and air.

Last but not least, even though air and water pollution in Yosemite National Park(YNP) result in destruction of species, YNP is too samll a region to be fell back on as representative of everywhere. It cannot be denied that the chances are other places take on an increase in amphibian number rather than a decrease, or other places also suffer from decline in amphibian number but it’s proved that pollution is not the occasion. If all these above assumptions turn out to be true, the write is too harsh to draw the conclusion that air and water pollution induces destruction of species.

To sum up, having viewed all the aspects above, we do not feel difficult to draw the conclusion that the arguement is neither tenable nor reasonable. In order to conduct a compelling argument, it’s highly recommeded that the author inspect the issue in a more all-rounded perspective, he should take into consideration othe alternatives aside from pollution that would influence the result, the cretability of the studies, and whether YNP is representative enough to represent the worldwide condition of amphibians.

[ 本帖最后由 sallyxindu 于 2006-2-21 00:16 编辑 ]

TARZAN_1982UID: 2142821

150The 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."

提纲
1.        两个Studies有问题。季节，调查是否有效，准确，公园的规模的环境。
2.        即使下降，也不能排除是Trout造成的。即使不是Trout造成的，也不能说一定是polllution造成的
3.        即使是pollution也不能代表全球趋势。

正文，
The argument seems to be plausible at first glance, in order to back up the arguer's ratiocination, he HE OR SHE cites two studies concerning the issue. Upon a closer scrutiny, however, some fallacies concealed in the argument will be unveiled in that the writer fails to take into consideration other factors which may bear the immediate interest to the underlying occasion of decline in the numbers of amphibians.

One threshold problem is that we have sound reason to doubt the credibility of the two studies. Consider, if the study in 1915 was conducted in summer while 1992 study was carried out in winter,when most of the amphibians hibernate, the outcomes by all means would be different(number of species in 1992 outnumbering that in 1915) because when animals hibernate, they cannot be detected by scientists. Consequently, 1992’s study result enjoys a superiority over 1915 in number. The possiblity also existes in that the park’s environment in 1915 differs from that in 1992. In turn, the number of amphibians varies accordingly. Without rulling out all the likelihoods, we couldnot be convinced that the studies are dependable enough to bolster the arguer’s conclusion.

Concession这个词放在这里感觉怪怪的 granted that the studies are credible enough to confirm the authors’ conclusion that the number of amphibians drops down sharply, there still lies the possibility that trout shoud be blamed for the decline, considering trouts’ inclination of eating amphibian’s eggs. Deep down, even though trouts are not the culprit of decress of amphibian’s number, it’s too arbitray to attribute the reason to pollution of water and air. In most events, besides pollution, other alternatives, say, climate, evolution of epecies and so forth all may have bearings on the outcome. As a result, in the aspect似乎舍掉为好, the arguer never furnishes us with a shred of strong evidence to demonstrate the causality between the amphibians’ decline in number and pollution of water and air.

Last but not least, even though air and water pollution in Yosemite National Park(YNP) result in destruction of species, YNP is too samll a region to be fell back on as representative of everywhere. It cannot be denied that the chances are other places take on an increase in amphibian number rather than a decrease, or other places also suffer from decline in amphibian number but it’s proved that pollution is not the occasion. If all these above assumptions turn out to be true, the write is too harsh to draw the conclusion that air and water pollution induces destruction of species.

To sum up, having viewed all the aspects above, we do not feel difficult to draw the conclusion that the arguement is neither tenable nor reasonable. In order to conduct a compelling argument, it’s highly recommeded that the author inspect the issue in a more all-rounded perspective, he should take into consideration othe alternatives aside from pollution that would influence the result, the cretability of the studies, and whether YNP is representative enough to represent the worldwide condition of amphibians.

拼写错误我并没有一一指出，只要打字的时候注意就好，其实我也感觉打字不出错挺难的，几个逻辑错误应该没有问题，论证也充分，不过第一段的最后一句话真的挺复杂，我读了几次才读懂。这里主要注意一点就是HE一定要写成HE OR SHE我想这个是不是你限时写的啊，能打出这么多字让我羡慕死了，30分钟感觉太短了