Argument45【CSMY作文互改小组】第五次作业

浮华如烟UID: 113618

45.The following appeared as an editorial in a wildlife journal.
"Arctic deer live on islands in Canada's arctic region. They search for food by moving over ice from island to island during the course of a year. Their habitat is limited to areas warm enough to sustain the plants on which they feed, and cold enough, at least some of the year, for the ice to cover the sea separating the islands, allowing the deer to travel over it. Unfortunately, according to reports from local hunters, the deer populations are declining. Since these reports coincide with recent global warming trends that have caused the sea ice to melt, we can conclude that the decline in arctic deer populations is the result of deer being unable to follow their age-old migration patterns across the frozen sea."
北极鹿生活在加拿大极地区域的岛屿上。它们全年都通过冰块在岛屿间移动来寻找食物。它们的栖居地局限在那些温暖得足以维持它们所需的植物生长，并且在一年的至少某些时候冷到足以让岛屿间的海面结冰以使它们能够在岛屿间旅行的地方。然而，根据当地猎人的报告，鹿的数量正在下降。由于这一报告正好与最近导致海洋冰面融化的全球变暖趋势同时发生，我们可以得出结论：北极鹿数量的下降是它们无法按它们原有的迁移习惯穿越结冰海面的结果。

syllabus:
1、全球平均气温变暖是否就意味着该地区变暖？
2、即使该地区变暖是否就意味着鹿的数目会下降？
3、即使该地区的鹿数目减少了是否就是归咎于它们无法迁徙？

At first glance, the arguer's reasoning seems to be quite sound. According to his conclusion, the decline in arctic deer populations is resulted from their lacking capability to follow their age-old migration habit across the frozen sea. But unfortunately, close scrutiny of his evidence and of the line of reasoning reveals that it suffers from several fallacies and apprehension will be heaped on the arctic deer's future.

The threshold problem worth considering is the author's hasty generalization. He unfairly assumes that the global average temperature trend is equally effective and practical in the Arctic areas. Nevertheless, this is not necessary the case. The statistics of temperature all over the world might not apply equally to the Arctic Circle. For example, perhaps the temperature around the equator areas or temperate zone where the most modern urban areas are located in is increasingly becoming warmer, even though the two poles areas of the earth are still cold. For this matter, despite of the consistency of the temperature in Arctic areas, the global temperature is higher than ever before. Without ruling out this and other scenarios, the author cannot draw any firm conclusion based on this vague fact.

Granted that these areas that the Arctic deer live in are really becoming warmer than before, the author unfairly assumes that the number of the deer is declined now, merely based on the reports from the hunters. However, this dubious assumption begs several questions: Firstly, are the reports from hunters objective and representative? It is entirely possible that the amount of the hunters is tripled compared to the last several years. As a result, the average number of the hunted deer is comparatively declined owning to the large base amount of hunters and the deer populations maybe still stable rather than declining. Secondly, do the deer have no potential abilities to alter their existent life habits to adapt themselves to the changing environment? Considering the warmer weather, perhaps they have no necessity to migrate for food to survive any more, for higher temperature would conduce to the prosperity of various plants and vegetables. Without informing us the more details of the reports and the life nature of the deer, we have sufficient reasons to believe that the population of the Arctic deer is in fact stable or even increasing now.

Even if we accept that the number of the deer is truly declined now, the author's claim is based on the assumption that no alternative explanations of such natural phenomenon are available. However, the author fails to offer any evidence to substantiate this crucial assumption. For example, perhaps other factors such as the large-scale deforestation, or over-hunting activities of human beings, or even the dramatic decrease of the plants that deer live on would be more compelling and reasonable rather than the warmer weather. Without considering and eliminating these and other alternative scenarios, it is difficult to assess the reliability of the author's recommendation that the higher temperature in the Arctic areas provides the unique selection to explain the decrease of the deer.

In summary, the argument is not well reasoned as it stands. The evidence provided in the analysis does not lend strong support to what the author maintains. To strengthen the argument, the arguer would have to present more evidence that the amount of the deer is assuredly declining. Furthermore, to better evaluate the conclusion, we would need more information regarding the effect of the altered habitat for deer.

staroceanUID: 2271193

At first glance, the arguer's reasoning seems to be quite sound. According to his conclusion, the decline in arctic deer populations is resulted from their lacking capability （恩，并不是鹿失去能力，而是冰化了导致他们不能再走了，觉得失去能力是针对鹿本身而言的，这里这样说有点奇怪。）to follow their age-old migration habit across the frozen sea. But unfortunately, close scrutiny of his evidence and of the line of reasoning reveals that it suffers from several fallacies and apprehension will be heaped on the arctic deer's future.

The threshold problem worth considering is the author's hasty generalization. He unfairly assumes that the global average temperature trend is equally effective and practical in the Arctic areas. Nevertheless, this is not necessary the case. The statistics of temperature all over the world might not apply equally to the Arctic Circle. For example, perhaps the temperature around the equator areas or temperate zone where the most modern urban areas are located in is increasingly becoming warmer, even though the two poles areas of the earth are still cold. For this matter, despite of the consistency of the temperature in Arctic areas, the global temperature is higher than ever before. Without ruling out this and other scenarios, the author cannot draw any firm conclusion based on this vague fact.

Granted that these areas that the Arctic deer live in are really becoming warmer than before, the author unfairly assumes that the number of the deer is declined now, merely based on the reports from the hunters. However, this dubious assumption begs several questions: Firstly, are the reports from hunters objective and representative? It is entirely possible that the amount of the hunters is tripled compared to the last several years. As a result, the average number of the hunted deer is comparatively declined owning to the large base amount of hunters and the deer populations maybe still stable rather than declining. Secondly, do the deer have no potential abilities to alter their existent life habits to adapt themselves to the changing environment? Considering the warmer weather, perhaps they have no necessity to migrate for food to survive any more, for higher temperature would conduce to the prosperity of various plants and vegetables. Without informing us the（去掉） more details of the reports and the life nature of the deer, we have sufficient reasons to believe that the population of the Arctic deer is in fact stable or even increasing now.

Even if we accept that the number of the deer is truly declined now, the author's claim is based on the assumption that no alternative explanations of such natural phenomenon are available. However, the author fails to offer any evidence to substantiate this crucial assumption. For example, perhaps other factors such as the large-scale deforestation, or over-hunting activities of human beings, or even the dramatic decrease of the plants that deer live on would be more compelling and reasonable rather than the warmer weather.（题目的理论是说冷的时候这里没有植物，所以必须要走呢，那么有没有植物是关键不是好不好吃，应该写，既然题目说暖和了，而且冰都化了，是不是冷的时候也有植物，所以不用走了呢。） Without considering and eliminating these and other alternative scenarios, it is difficult to assess the reliability of the author's recommendation that the higher temperature in the Arctic areas provides the unique selection to explain the decrease of the deer.

In summary, the argument is not well reasoned as it stands. The evidence provided in the analysis does not lend strong support to what the author maintains. To strengthen the argument, the arguer would have to present more evidence that the amount of the deer is assuredly declining. Furthermore, to better evaluate the conclusion, we would need more information regarding the effect of the altered habitat for deer.

恩，其实很高兴看见哥哥开始赶工了哈。
但是似乎没有时间看以前写过的文呢，所以这一篇的问题似乎有点多。
我慢慢说
我把你的主题句都划出来了。

首先的问题是，让步的时候，顺承关系找的不是很好。
题目的思路：全球变暖，冰化了，鹿不能迁徙，鹿的数量减少了。
这道题却是是个比较适合写成让步的题目
全球变暖是不是冰就化了呢？就算冰化了是不是就不能迁徙了呢？就算不能走是不是就死了呢？
但是你写的是这样的：
全球变暖是不是北极也变暖？就算变暖了，也不能因为猎人说鹿少了就认为减少了？就算鹿少了，也不一定因为全球变暖。
你看你的是从第一个，跳到最后一个，又跳回来了。感觉和题目的思路并不是特别紧密。
关键的问题，不是要仅仅看两段之间的顺承关系，尽量看全文的关系，你每段的顺成关系都没有问题，但是三段在一起的时候，就有点不是全都连着了。这个问题我在你的另一个文里也说过，有时间你过去看看。

第二个问题呢，还是尽量和题目联系的更紧密一点，你的第一段说全球变暖是不是鹿的地区也变暖了，确实可以这么写，但是正如你写出来的一样，这个立论点不是很容易展开，所以段内有一点空。其实作者是想说变暖，冰化了，所以鹿不能走了。那么如果把立论点改成，变暖对冰的影响程度是不是足以让鹿无法行走就好写多了。因为这样一来，至少有两层可以写：1。化了没化，2。化了多少，是不是不能走了。这两层之间也可以用小让步来写。而且写的时候呢，我觉得与其光说是不是都变暖了，不如说变暖了，但是这个地区非常寒冷，变那么一点暖管不管用，这样更好。因为该地极其寒冷是全文的原话。
还有就是你写的时候也写了，是不是不迁徙也能活，这里因为题目里也说了，鹿要生活在暖和的足以让植物生存的地方，那么写的时候完全可以说，暖和了可能就有足够的食物，根本用不着走了。总之尽量多用原文提供的线索更好一点。

还有一个小的问题，其实也不是什么问题，就是调查还是要尽量找调查的特殊之处。我觉得猎人的报告，特殊之处在于，猎人不是专门统计数量的人，他们的观察呢可能不能说明问题，因为鹿可能不在他们打猎的范围和时间内出没，所以对他们来说观察到的鹿少了，但是实际上总的数目并没有少。总之还是尽量看看除了代表性，可靠性之外的问题更好一点。当然哥哥说的那个猎人总数的问题也是不错问题，呵呵。
另外这个猎人报告的问题，我觉得放在全文让步里有点不是很舒服，因为这个是题目主体链的枝节问题，原文说，猎人报告鹿死了，鹿为什么死了呢？因为 。。。。不能走了，鹿死了，并不是猎人报告鹿死了和不能走了之类的共同作用推出鹿死了。尽管单独来看，一段里面写鹿不一定死了（首先猎人报告不可靠，可能根本没有死，再者不能走了也不一定死），这样没什么错误，但是放在全文的让步关系里就不是很舒服。觉得多出来了个东西似的。不过这个也是我自己觉得不是那么舒服，不是什么大问题啦，呵呵。

恩，主要是这两个问题，其他当然没什么问题啦 。有时间看看以前写的文，argument我应该都改过了。如果觉得我改的有问题，恳请告知呢，要不然我下次改的时候还是在说同样的问题，对你对我都没有意思呢。

哥哥加油哦。


[ 本帖最后由 starocean 于 2007-1-25 15:15 编辑 ]