ARGUMENT150 互拍留链接啊！

TARZAN_1982UID: 2142821

------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.'
------提纲------
1.过早排除了trout的可能性
2.没有考虑其他原因
3.即使是污染的原因，也不能扩大到世界范围
------正文------
In this letter, the arguer recommends that the decline in the numbers of amphibians worldwide results from the global pollution of water and air. To support the recommendation, the arguer points out that in 1992 the species of amphibians decreased to four compared to seven in 1915 and the numbers of each species were drastically reduced. However, to close scrutiny of the recommendation, I find that it is unconvincing in several grounds.

In the first place, the arguer hastily eliminates the possibility that indeed it is the trout which were introduced in 1920 cause the decline of the numbers of amphibians. Perhaps since that time, the trout eat a great deal of the amphibian eggs, thereby caused the reduction of the numbers of each species. And it is also possible that some species disappeared from the park just because of the trout. In this letter, the arguer does not provide enough evidence to prove that the decline in Yosemite is not because of trout.

In the second place, even the decline of species numbers in the park and the decline of the numbers of each species is not the fault of trout. There might be some other reasons could cause this situation. It is possible that other species like trout also like eat their eggs. Or perhaps there are other animals even could eat adult ones. Thus, the decline of adult numbers of each amphibian also could cause the species reduced even disappeared because that means few offspring would come into the world. Obviously the arguer does not exclude these possibilities and hastily to get the conclusion.

Last but not the least, even the decline of the numbers of amphibian species in Yosemite National Park is because of pollution. The arguer also could not expend the conclusion to the aspect of the decline in numbers of amphibians worldwide. Only depending on this survey could not get the general conclusion because the sample size is too small and it is not representative as well. Without further evidences, the recommendation is not convincing.

To sum up, the arguer fails to convince me that the decline of amphbians numbers worldwide is because of the pollution of water and air. To bolster the recommendation the arguer must provide more evidence about the studies.

sallyxinduUID: 2131253

------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.'
------提纲------
1.过早排除了trout的可能性
2.没有考虑其他原因
3.即使是污染的原因，也不能扩大到世界范围
------正文------
In this letter, the arguer recommends reckons that the decline in the numbers of amphibians worldwide results from the global pollution of water and air. To support the recommendation, the arguer points out that in 1992 the species of amphibians decreased to four compared to seven in 1915 and the numbers of each species were drastically reduced. However, to close scrutiny of the recommendation, I find that it is unconvincing in several grounds.

In the first place, the arguer hastily eliminates the possibility that indeed it is the trout which were introduced in 1920 cause the decline of the numbers of amphibians. Perhaps since that time, the trout eat a great deal of the amphibian eggs, thereby caused the reduction of the numbers of each species. And it is also possible that some species disappeared from the park just because of the trout. 和前面重复啊In this letter, the arguer does not provide enough evidence to prove that the decline in Yosemite is not because of trout.

In the second place, even the decline of species numbers in the park and the decline of the numbers of each species is not the fault of trout. There might be some other reasons could cause this situation. It is possible that other species like trout also like eat their eggs. Or perhaps there are other animals even could eat adult ones. Thus, the decline of adult numbers of each amphibian also could cause the species reduced even disappeared because that means few offspring would come into the world. Obviously the arguer does not exclude these possibilities and hastily to get the conclusion.

Last but not the least, even the decline of the numbers of amphibian species in Yosemite National Park is because of pollution. The arguer also could not expend the conclusion to the aspect of the decline in numbers of amphibians worldwide. Only depending on this survey could not get the general conclusion because the sample size 有sample吗？我觉得没有啊，只是陈述了两年的物种变化情况而已is too small and it is not representative as well. Without further evidences, the recommendation is not convincing.
觉得这段不够详细．

To sum up, the arguer fails to convince me that the decline of amphbians numbers worldwide is because of 用了很多次了，换词吧，比如 hinger on the pollution of water and air. To bolster the recommendation the arguer must provide more evidence about the studies

整体不错，论证点也比较全面．比上篇好多了，楼住进步很快啊，继续加油～！！！