argument150 第二次限时，字数多了，写得有点乱

小室黄瓜UID: 2155213

提纲：
论断中有两个结论，一个是全球数量下降，是有水和空气污染造成。二是不是因为鳟鱼的引入造成数量下降的。都没有依据。
1 拿这个两个例子不能说明第一个论断，因为仅一个国家公园，不能说明全世界的情况。并且不是因为鳟鱼引入造成下降这个结论不能解释不了全球问题而造成。他们没关系。没有说其他有Y的地方有没有trout，如果有那么就是鳟鱼造成的。
2 这两个论据有问题。A 只能证明数量变化，不能说明其他问题。例如变化的原因。B 往水里放鱼，也许还放了其他与Y有关的动物，没有说明。所以可能是由t也可能不是。
3 即使不是由鳟鱼造成的 ，也不能说是水和空气污染。A 没有任何关于环境污染的内容 b  水污染，鱼也不能活，没有鱼吃卵，数量也许不会急剧下降。C 很有可能是食物的缺乏，或天气的变化，或自然灾害等造成物种不能适应变化的环境。而自然被淘汰。

TOPIC：ARGUMENT 150 - 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."
WORDS：523          TIME：0:33:54          DATE：2006-2-21

In this argument, there are two conclusion that the arguer has made. One is that the decline in the numbers of amphibians clearly indicates the global pollution of water and air. Another is that the introduction of trout can not be the real reason for the Yosemite decline because of the worldwide facts. However, the two conclusion base on insufficient evidence and the process of reasoning is not cogent.

At the beginning, the two studies which being pointed out as the evidence of the final conclusion may at first glance be right, however, after further consideration, it has fault in some facets. Firstly, the two studying have no relationship with the reason of water and air pollution. In this argument, there have no reference to the pollution but the final conclusion has been made on the base of it. If the arguer wants to confirm the result he should also give us the environmental condition in the seven years but not only the variety of the quantity of the amphibians. Secondly, the study can not result in that the it is not for trout that contribute to the decline of Y because it does not explain the worldwide decline. If there are trout in other national parks and other kind of places which have y, we may certainly have the idea that there is indeed relationship with the trout when considering the decline of y. So this study bases on no evidence with the two conclusions.

Then, the process of analyzing the two studies also have some deficient. One the one hand, the two studies only give us the quantities of the Y but not contain any reference reason for the environment and other facts. One the other hand, it only contains the introduction of trout but not mention the other animals that can have influence with y . May be the other animals can eat y but not only its eggs. So it may be some other facts that result in the decline of y. And we can not just agree or negative the result of the introduction of trout.

Finally, even if this is not because the introduction of trout, we can not assume that the pollution of water and air is the real reason for the result.  For one thing, if the water is indeed polluted, then the fish such as the trout may not live in this kind of water either. How can the eggs of y be ate by trout? May be because of the water pollution ,the quantity of y may be increased. For another thing, other possible facts such as the food of y and the change of climate of the park  and what's more the  natural disaster in one of the seven years studying can all be the contribution to the decline. We can not ignore these possibilities.

In sum, to make the conclusion like the arguer should base on more facts and evidence such as the condition of the environment and the other animals' introduction and so forth. Without the detailed information about the park and the whole world, we can not get the scientific conclusion.

hepengmcUID: 203123

In this argument, there are two conclusions that the arguer has made. One is that the decline in the numbers of amphibians clearly indicates the global pollution of water and air. Another is that the introduction of trout can not be the real reason for the Yosemite decline because of the worldwide facts. However, the two conclusion base on insufficient evidence and the process of reasoning is not cogent.

At the beginning, the two studies which being pointed out as the evidence of the final  conclusion may at first glance be right, however, after further consideration, it has fault s in some facets. Firstly, the two studying have no relationship with the reason of water and air pollution. In this argument, there have no reference to the pollution but the final conclusion has been made on the base of it(最好说明一下，用it指待不明确，可以参考江奇的讲义). If the arguer wants to confirm the result he should also give us the environmental condition in the seven years but not only the variety of the quantity of the amphibians. Secondly, the study can not result in that (the it) is not for trout that contribute to the decline of Y because it does not explain the worldwide decline. If there are trout in other national parks and other kind of places which have y, we may certainly have the idea that there is indeed relationship with the trout when considering the decline of y. So this study bases on no evidence with the two conclusions.

Then, the process of analyzing the two studies also have some deficient. One the one hand, the two studies only give us the quantities of the Y but not contain any reference reason for the environment and other facts. One the other hand, it only contains the introduction of trout but not mention the other animals that can have influence with y . May be the other animals can eat y but not only its eggs. So it may be some other facts that result in the decline of y. And we can not just agree or negative the result of the introduction of trout.

Finally, even if this is not because the introduction of trout, we can not assume that the pollution of water and air is the real reason for the result.  For one thing, if the water is indeed polluted, then the fish such as the trout may not live in this kind of water either. How can the eggs of y be ate by trout? May be because of the water pollution ,the quantity of y may be increased(好像逻辑有些问题). For another thing, other possible facts such as the food of y and the change of climate of the park  and what's more， the  natural disaster in one of the seven years studying can all be the contribution to the decline. We can not ignore these possibilities.

In sum, to make the conclusion like the arguer should base on more facts and evidence such as the condition of the environment and the other animals' introduction and so forth. Without the detailed information about the park and the whole world, we can not get the scientific conclusion.

很赞的说，写的很好分析的很深刻，就一些小错误，很羡慕你在这段可以写这么多字

frankkuUID: 2136240

提纲：
论断中有两个结论，一个是全球数量下降，是有水和空气污染造成。二是不是因为鳟鱼的引入造成数量下降的。都没有依据。
1 拿这个两个例子不能说明第一个论断，因为仅一个国家公园，不能说明全世界的情况。并且不是因为鳟鱼引入造成下降这个结论不能解释不了全球问题而造成。他们没关系。没有说其他有Y的地方有没有trout，如果有那么就是鳟鱼造成的。
2 这两个论据有问题。A 只能证明数量变化，不能说明其他问题。例如变化的原因。B 往水里放鱼，也许还放了其他与Y有关的动物，没有说明。所以可能是由t也可能不是。
3 即使不是由鳟鱼造成的 ，也不能说是水和空气污染。A 没有任何关于环境污染的内容 b  水污染，鱼也不能活，没有鱼吃卵，数量也许不会急剧下降。C 很有可能是食物的缺乏，或天气的变化，或自然灾害等造成物种不能适应变化的环境。而自然被淘汰。
这个提纲的确有些乱哦，呵呵TOPIC：ARGUMENT 150 - 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."
WORDS：523          TIME：0:33:54          DATE：2006-2-21

In this argument, there are two conclusions that the arguer has made. One is that the decline in the numbers of amphibians clearly indicates the global pollution of water and air. Another is that the introduction of trout can not be the real reason for the Yosemite decline because of the worldwide facts. However, the two conclusions base on insufficient evidence and the process of reasoning is not cogent.

At the beginning, the two studies which being pointed out（这里有点问题吧） as the evidence of the final conclusion may at first glance be right, however, after further consideration, it has fault in some facets. Firstly, the two studying have no relationship with the reason of water and air pollution. In this argument, there have no reference to the pollution but the final conclusion has been made on the base of it. If the arguer wants to confirm the result he should also give us the environmental condition in the seven years but not only the variety of the quantity of the amphibians. Secondly, the study can not result in that（去掉the） it is not for trout that contribute to the decline of Y because it does not explain the worldwide decline. If there are trout in other national parks and other kind of places which have y, we may certainly have the idea that there is indeed relationship with the trout when considering the decline of y. So this study bases on no evidence with the two conclusions.

Then, the process of analyzing the two studies also has some deficient. One the one hand, the two studies only show us the quantities of the Y but not contain any reference reason for the environment and other facts. One the other hand, it only contains the introduction of trout but not mention the other animals that can have influence with y. May be the other animals can eat y but not only its eggs. So it may be some other facts that result in the decline of y. And we can not just agree or negative the result of the introduction of trout.

Finally, even if this is not because of the introduction of trout, we can not assume that the pollution of water and air is the real reason for the result.  For one thing, if the water is indeed polluted, then the fish such as the trout may not live in this kind of water either. How can the eggs of y be ate by trout? May be because of the water pollution, the quantity of y may be increased. For another thing, other possible facts such as the food of y and the change of climate of the park  and what's more the  natural disaster in one of the seven years studying can all be the contribution to the decline. We can not ignore these possibilities.

In sum, to make the conclusion like(在这里是想做副词讲吗？) the arguer should base on more facts and evidence such as the condition of the environment and the other animals' introduction and so forth. Without the detailed information about the park and the whole world, we can not get the scientific conclusion.
有好多个May be 可以用其他的词替换一下，比如possibly, probably等等避免重复。总的感觉思路比较清晰了

[ 本帖最后由 frankku 于 2006-2-22 10:53 编辑 ]