argument45 初次发帖请多关照！

mirror_WangUID: 2346649

TOPIC: ARGUMENT45 - 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."
WORDS: 413          TIME: 1:26:36          DATE: 2007-6-10

In the argument, the arguer concludes that the decline in arctic deer populations in Canada is due to deer being unable to follow their age-old migration patterns across the frozen sea. To illustrate the point, the arguer cites the report from local hunters which indicate the decline of deer populations and the evidence that the recent global warming trends have caused the sea ice to melt. However, the argument suffers from several critical flaws.

First of all, the arguer fails to convince us that the decline of deer populations does exist. The mere fact, based on which the arguer draws such conclusion, is the report from local hunters. The arguer falsely assumes that the hunters see less deer means the deer populations are declining, as there is the possibility that the deer has moved their habitat to where the hunters do not usually go to and thus does not necessarily lead to the conclusion that there are fewer deer than before.

Secondly, the arguer unfairly assumes that the sea ice in Canada's arctic region has melted. There is no evidence to show such rising temperature in the local area, even though there are such global warming trends. Global warming does not necessarily result in local warming in Canada, and we may assume the temperature in Canada has actually been lower which jeopardized the survival of the plant which the deer feed on. Even if there is also warming trend in Canada, no evidence to prove that whether such warming is enough to cause the frozen sea melts.

Last but not the least, even if the deer populations do decrease and the frozen sea there does melt, the arguer still commits a fallacy in mistaking the concurrence of these two phenomena for the causal relationship between them. The arguer does not consider other factors which may cause the decline of deer populations such as over-hunting, environment damage caused by pollution, or other natural causes: a pandemic plague which killed a large proportion of the deer population, for instance.

To sum up, the argument has been weakened as the evidence does not lend enough credibility to the conclusion. To substantiate the conclusion, the arguer needs to provide much more convincing evidence such as result of a census, data of the variation of local temperature, to prove the actual decrease of deer populations and melting of local frozen sea. And the arguer should also provide more information about other factors which may influence the deer populations.

[ 本帖最后由 lastangel 于 2007-6-10 23:27 编辑 ]

最後の使徒UID: 2257608

TOPIC: ARGUMENT45 - 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."
WORDS: 413          TIME: 1:26:36          DATE: 2007-6-10

In the argument, the arguer concludes that the decline in arctic deer populations in Canada is due to deer being unable to follow their age-old migration patterns across the frozen sea. To illustrate the point, the arguer cites the report from local hunters which indicate the decline of deer populations and the evidence that the recent global warming trends have caused the sea ice to melt(which might lead to the deers seperate... 在用首段梳理题目逻辑关系的时候需要把作者的论据和论点联系起来, 说明每个部分的作用, 然后对于你的展开会有好处, 单纯地重复题目提取元素意义不大, 因为阅卷的人对于题目已经很熟悉了). However, the argument suffers from several critical flaws.

First of all, the arguer fails to convince us that the decline of deer populations does exist. The mere fact, based on which the arguer draws such conclusion, is the report from local hunters. The arguer falsely assumes that the hunters see less deer means the deer populations are declining, as there is the(这里不宜直接举例, 因为你前面的概括都很笼统, 第二句第三句都在说作者错误对待了猎人的报告但怎么错误对待却没说清楚, 这种时候用一句"看到的不一定就是真的""报告也可能搀假""可信度值得怀疑"比你用falsely assumes这种模版化没有信息量的表达要有效得多) possibility(一下从笼统的概括到如此具体的可能性假设让你的论点很站不住脚, 你可以说鹿跑了没问题, 这样的确能削弱作者的结论, 但同时你也没有论据--你怎么知道鹿就会跑呢? 这样需要提出一个推理, 比如长期的狩猎让鹿产生了对猎人的回避和警惕能力, 从而使它们学会躲避猎人, 或者恰恰由于狩猎的原因, 鹿被大量猎杀, 数量自然就下降了, 很多原因都会造成猎人报告鹿的数量下降, 我们甚至可以怀疑猎人为了骗取社会保障虚报了自己的生活状态...等等, 反正ARGUMENT的展开有很多值得深入推敲的地方, 让你的论断变得坚实有力能够大大提高文章得说服力) that the deer has moved their habitat to where the hunters do not usually go to and thus does not necessarily lead to the conclusion that there are fewer deer than before.

Secondly, the arguer unfairly assumes that the sea ice in Canada's arctic region has melted. There is no evidence to show such rising temperature(rising temperature跟你说的地区冰融化不是同一个逻辑层次的, 在同义替换的时候注意换用法别换内容, 特别是接在主题句后面的一句话是解释主题句用的, 最好就事论事) in the local area, even though there are such global warming trends. Global warming does not necessarily result in local warming in Canada(why? 这句有论断没有论证, 全球气候分布不平均, 二氧化碳分布不平均, 加拿大环保做得好...等等, 你要给出论据), and we may assume the temperature in Canada has actually been lower which jeopardized the survival of the plant which the deer feed on.(这一句又说远了, 你前面的内容还没论证完不要在同一句话中提出更加具体的可能性, 这个可能性可以说在逻辑上更进了一步, 这种时候两个例子的逻辑关系没那么密切, 最好就分开成两句写, 用一个递进结构) Even if there is also warming trend in Canada, no evidence to prove that whether such warming is enough to cause the frozen sea melts.(还是有论断没论据, 作者没evidence你也没evidence, 这种时候谁也不占便宜--说明全球变暖幅度很小, 提升的温度不一定能够融化冰, 洋流带来新的浮冰等等都可以加强你的论证)

Last but not the least, even if the deer populations do decrease and the frozen sea there does melt, the arguer still commits a fallacy in mistaking the concurrence of these two phenomena for the causal relationship between them. The arguer does not consider other factors which may cause the decline of deer populations such as over-hunting, environment damage caused by pollution, or other natural causes: a pandemic plague which killed a large proportion of the deer population, for instance.(这一段的论证很单薄, 首先, 有他因不代表本因就不起作用, 好比你说除了汽车尾气还有很多原因会造成空气污染, 但这不能证明汽车尾气就不会造成空气污染. 在提出他因之前需要先说明作者的因果不成立的依据, 比如冰块融化没有把鹿从食物区剥离, 鹿有别的办法比如趴在浮冰上飘到另一块岛屿, 鹿根据环境养成了新的习惯...等等, 然后再用他因说明在作者提出的因果不成立的情况下事实真相在别的地方, 这样才能使论证统一有力)

To sum up, the argument has been weakened as the evidence does not lend enough credibility to the conclusion. To substantiate the conclusion, the arguer needs to provide much more convincing evidence such as result of a census(census指的是普查, 这里只是report), data of the variation of local temperature, to prove the actual decrease of deer populations and melting of local frozen sea. And the arguer should also provide more information about other factors which may influence the deer populations.

总评: LZ的破题思路相当好, 相信对ARGUMENT的破题已经有一定的心得了，这是一个好开始

文章的结构不错, 层层递进论证有效, 但是在段首的连接词使用上还值得推敲, 比如你的BODY第一, 二部分其实说的是并列的事实不足, 因此用on the one hand, on the other hand更合适, 而第三段则进了一步, 因此不适用表示并列结构的last but not the least, 直接even if开头效果会更好.

论证是一个薄弱的地方, 所有的论证都显得过于直接和具体, 缺乏抽象的分析和论证, 这样造成的结果就是你跟作者处在同一个高度上, 可以被人轻易驳倒, 因此需要summarize作者的错误, 进行具体的描述然后提出合理的论据, 让论证显得完整些. 400字出头的文章比较难办到, 特别是你的开头和结尾又很长, 因此扩充文章容量是很必要的.

总之文章的水平很不错了, 理清了头绪下一步相信进步会很快, 加油!

chenxiongmaoUID: 2645509

Mirror_wang:
你好，在找文章的逻辑错误和论证的次序方面，我有一些不同意见，希望和你交流一下。
作者的结论：鹿的数量下降是因为冰融化，从而破坏了鹿的 AGE-OLD MIGRATION PATTERN 造成的。这个结论过于草率。冰融化需要吸收热量，会造成周围环境的温度下降， 因此可能破坏植物的生存环境。所以鹿的数量下降也有可能是因为食物缺乏造成的。并非只有作者提出的一个原因。从作者的结论下手，首先对其错误进行论证，这样能够加强论证的力度和有效性。而你把它放在第二点进行论证的，希望在这一点上能听听你的看法。

chenxiongmaoUID: 2645509

Mirror_wang:
你好，我又把文章的逻辑错误重新找了一下，与你的有所不同。但是对原文结论作为破题点的意见继续保留。希望在逻辑错误和论证顺序上听听你的意见，感谢回复。
作者的结论：鹿的数量下降是因为冰融化，从而破坏了鹿的 AGE-OLD MIGRATION PATTERN 造成的。这个结论没有根据。作者没有提供任何有效的证据，比如气象数据，冰盖变化的观察报告等等证明当地的冰盖在融化，只是提出猎人报告鹿数量的减少与全球变暖巧合。因此，在没有信服证据的前提下，草率地把鹿数量的下降归结为是冰盖融化造成的是没有根据的。（从作者结论入手批驳其逻辑错误，这样能够加强论证的力度和有效性。）
另外，即便有证据，冰融化需要吸收热量，会造成周围环境的温度下降， 因此可能破坏植物的生存环境。所以鹿的数量下降也有可能是因为食物缺乏造成的，并非只有作者提出的一个原因。
第三，鹿的数量真的减少了吗？作者的依据来自猎人的报告，而非权威报告。即便我相信猎人的报告是诚实的，作者也没有说明报告中的现象是否具有普遍性。难道鹿就不会因为环境所迫改变迁徙路线，由冰盖大陆迁徙转为陆地之间迁徙。这种由于生存环境变化导致迁徙路线变化的例子在自然界屡见不鲜。毕竟加拿大是一片广阔的土地，万一迁徙路线改变，猎人又没有观察到，那么鹿数量的减少的结论就不可信。

smilingsophieUID: 2634207

各位老师好，我刚着手复习argument.着是我第一篇看到的文章（感叹一下，寄托真是好地方。。）
在没看楼主的文章之前，自己也列了个处女提纲。。列完之后有点困惑啊。。
1.global warming trends does not mean influenced this area.(作为攻击的第一段，这个会不会显得太弱了？而且我也没有理由啊。。）
2.The habits of those deer does not mean their population will decline.（完全是找茬。。根据作者的论据反推）
3.the words by local hunters can not be the evidence to prove the decline of deer population at all.（这个还算比较有力，难道要把他放在攻击的首段？）

下个月中旬就要考试了，恳求各位前辈指导，小妹这厢有礼了~~！^^