Argument150 by xiahsoul

xiahsoulUID: 2441730

Argument150:
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.作者首先假设YNP是由于污染，并把结论扩散到worldwide：首先，并没有资料表明是否全球的amphibians有减少，其次，可能是由于YN是在工业区，污染严重
2.其实作者的前提是不成立的. 不是trout的原因导致decline，不能说明就是pollution，并没有污染的信息提供，或者是污染严重到使amphibians大量减少
3.可能是其他原因，比如自然选择，游客的破坏
WORD:421  自己修改过    TIME: N/A

The causal relationship between declining amphibians in Yosemite National Park and pollution of water and air, and the generation to embrace worldwide situation are not as cogent as the arguer assumes, which cannot stand much reexamination.

To begin with, the arguer asserts, on the basis of two studies and the assumed decline in the total number of amphibians worldwide, the declining amphibians in Yosemite National Park n California result from pollution, and expands this conclusion to embrace global situation. In fact, possibly, it is not the case. Firstly, the arguer provides no information as to whether overall amphibians decreased or not, it is possible the total number remains still while the Yosemite National Park is an exception. Further, perhaps fewer amphibians in the park is due to pollution, but that is not true when comes to amphibians throughout the world. There is a good chance that Yosemite National Park locates in the industrial estate, in which the pollution is serious and adversely affects the multiplying of the amphibians, but it is other factors serve to the declining amphibians worldwide.

Actually, the presumed conclusion--that is, the pollution in Yosemite National Park contributes to the declining amphibians--is not tenable, for committing a mistake that as the reason of decreased amphibians, pollution and introduction of trout are not mutually exclusive. Through excluding the possibility of the introduction of trout in waters, the arguer draws the arbitrary conclusion, at least to some extent, that it is pollution lead to fewer amphibians in Yosemite. But no information has been provided to substantiate.  Even if there is indeed the pollution of water and air in Yosemite is the pollution serious enough to cause such manifest decrease in Yosemite, especially considerate the restriction on pollution standards in California?  Without been informed this information, any assertion is ludicrous.

Besides, the conclusion of Yosemite is further flawed by neglecting other possible factors. For instance, during the long period between studies cited in the argument, these species of amphibians are in danger by natural selection, for the absence of appropriate living skill and ability of adapting to changing environment. The same is true of damage brought by visitors ,perhaps because of Yosemite National Park being opened to the visitors, the health of amphibians would be weakened, given that the living custom would be disturbed. If either scenario above is the case, the assertion would be groundless.

Simply put, the arguer fails to convince me on the correlation between the global pollution of waterand air and the worldwide decreased amphibians.

后面和zephyrqq讨论了下 关于思路有些变动 希望版主再辛苦看看  :loveliness:


[ 本帖最后由 xiahsoul 于 2008-2-29 01:27 编辑 ]

xiahsoulUID: 2441730

版主：我们讨论的结果是不质疑全球amphibians有没有减少，而是trout是不是有影响amphibians数量。

不同的用下划线标注了的(还有就是段落顺序有变化）
新提纲：
1.其实作者的前提是不成立的：作者首先假设YNP是由于污染，但是不一定：首先，其实可能是YN由于trout(毕竟trout要吃蛋是正常的）（简单提一下）；其次，不是trout的原因导致decline，不能说明就是pollution，并没有污染的信息提供，或者是污染严重到使amphibians大量减少（重要论述）
2.可能是其他原因，比如自然选择，游客的破坏
3.即使YN污染是真的，却把结论扩散到worldwide，相当于假设了YN和Worldwide 情况一样，其实可能是由于YN是在工业区，污染严重

WORD:421  自己修改过    TIME: N/A

The causal relationship between declining amphibians in Yosemite National Park and pollution of water and air, and the generation to embrace worldwide situation are not as cogent as the arguer assumes, which cannot stand much reexamination.

To begin with, the arguer asserts, on the basis of two studies and the fact--decline in the total number of amphibians worldwide, the declining amphibians in Yosemite National Park n California result from pollution. In fact, possibly, it is not the case. There is a good chance that the introduction of trout did affect the number of amphibians, since it is true that the trout would eat the eggs of amphibians. Besides, the presumed conclusion--that is, the pollution in Yosemite National Park contributes to the declining amphibians--is not tenable, for committing a mistake that as the reason of decreased amphibians, pollution and introduction of trout are not mutually exclusive. Through excluding the possibility of the introduction of trout in waters, the arguer draws the arbitrary conclusion, at least to some extent, that it is pollution lead to fewer amphibians in Yosemite. But no information has been provided to substantiate.  Even if there is indeed the pollution of water and air in Yosemite is the pollution serious enough to cause such manifest decrease in Yosemite, especially considerate the restriction on pollution standards in California?  Without been informed this information, any assertion is ludicrous.

Actually, the conclusion of Yosemite is further flawed by neglecting other possible factors. For instance, during the long period between studies cited in the argument, these species of amphibians are in danger by natural selection, for the absence of appropriate living skill and ability of adapting to changing environment. The same is true of damage brought by visitors ,perhaps because of Yosemite National Park being opened to the visitors, the health of amphibians would be weakened, given that the living custom would be disturbed. If either scenario above is the case, the assertion would be groundless.

Even if the fewer amphibians in the park is due to pollution, but that is not true when comes to amphibians throughout the world. There is a good chance that Yosemite National Park locates in the industrial estate, in which the pollution is serious and adversely affects the multiplying of the amphibians, but it is other factors serve to the declining amphibians worldwide. For example, excessive hunting of human beings would also contribute to the declining of amphibians.(现在只想到这么一点点···哎，不知道版主有没有什么建议）


Simply put, the arguer fails to convince me on the correlation between the global pollution of waterand air and the worldwide decreased amphibians.

[ 本帖最后由 xiahsoul 于 2008-2-29 02:48 编辑 ]

liyue24UID: 2350787

The causal relationship between declining [of] amphibians in Yosemite National Park and pollution of water and air, and the generation to embrace worldwide situation are not as cogent as the arguer assumes, which cannot stand much reexamination.

简洁的开头，好！但是注意between这个。一般我们说之间可能都是两者了，而后面那个and the generation to..的，显得有点奇怪。把开始这句的思路再理理。YNP和pullution的relationship是不像arguer assumes的。于是他推断全球环境的结论也是有问题的。

To begin with, the arguer asserts, on the basis of two studies and the assumed decline in the total number of amphibians worldwide, the declining [of] amphibians in Yosemite National Park in California result from pollution, and expands this conclusion to embrace global situation.[这句话有点太长，而且中间断的地方太多。试着用两句话来表达自己这一长句的意思。就像题目一样，先说观点是什么，然后再说支持的论据是什么，最后是怎么推广的] In fact, possibly[这个副词放在这还前后逗号的，也是给人语句太零碎的感觉], it is not the case. Firstly, the arguer provides no information as to whether overall amphibians decreased or not,[句号。因为后面已经是另外一个意思了，完全可以用两句话来写] it is possible the total number remains still while the Yosemite National Park is an exception. Further, perhaps fewer amphibians in the park is due to pollution, but that is not true when [it 否则when的从句没有主语] comes to amphibians throughout the world.[这句说的有点太过绝对，而后面的理由似乎又不是很足。毕竟Y在什么地方是不好说的。是否可以这样来说：“Y可能是因为污染，兴许因为Y在工业区附近。但是全球不能都是工业区啊？所以为啥说全球都污染呢？”这样是否可以？] There is a good chance that Yosemite National Park locates in the industrial estate, in which the pollution is serious and adversely affects the multiplying of the amphibians, but it is other factors serve[应该用ing形式吧？] to the declining [of] amphibians worldwide.

我总结这一段都是说的关于不能推广这个逻辑问题的。Y地区减少不见得全球就减少，Y地区是因为污染不见得全球就是污染。但是看开头首句却没有特别能重点表达这个意思出来。而且first和further的两个虽然都说了一些他因，但是也没有能再总结一下绕回这个意思的地方。这样就会不会让人感觉有点是偏离题目呢？

firstly说可能Y地区是个特例，这个地方两栖减少了不见得全球就减少。那然后呢？这一层分析就最终断在这了？感觉是话说了一半的样子，后半句就自己吞下去了。“暂且不管Y地区两栖减少的原因，说全球两栖减少就是不对的，所以说全球污染也更是没有根据的。”这个是不是你想说的但是没说出来的？ :)
further这个也是这样，Y可能是因为污染，但是全球不见得就是因为污染。这里又明显接受了说全球两栖也减少这个事实，然后再让步说Y是因为污染但是不能说全球都因为污染。other factors也只是浅浅一提，没有再深究。如果有人问“为啥说是别的原因为啥不是污染了？你怎么就知道是这样？”岂不是又不好解释了呢？

in sum，一定要整理自己思路，看看这一段到底要说哪点。比如我就是要说不能扩大推广这个问题。那就说1数量减少不能推广，这个是错的；2即使没一个地区污染了不见得全球就都是同样原因造成污染。这个其实我不太推荐说第二点，因为这个地方和原文作者思路不甚符合。人家并没有说Y地区情况如何，也是污染，然后推广到全球的。人家是通过两栖数量减少来推广到全球的。所以，这里扯上的第二点，会有点觉得稍微偏离题目。

Actually, the presumed conclusion--that is, the pollution in Yosemite National Park contributes to the declining amphibians--is not tenable, for committing a mistake that as the reason of decreased amphibians, pollution and introduction of trout are not mutually exclusive.[句子还是过长过散，中间插入，逗号都把语义给拆乱了] Through excluding the possibility of the introduction of trout in waters, the arguer draws the arbitrary conclusion, at least to some extent, that it is pollution lead to fewer amphibians in Yosemite. But no information has been provided to substantiate.  Even if there is indeed the pollution of water and air in Yosemite is the pollution[and the pollution is] serious enough to cause such manifest decrease in Yosemite, especially considerate the restriction on pollution standards in California?[这句没看懂……]  Without been informed this information, any assertion is ludicrous.

个人感觉这一段的语义表述不是很好，我看完了再看了提纲才明白主要意思是啥。段首没有一个TS来统领一下的。后面结尾处的Even if那个长句不是很懂，主句里面没有主语……
而且，原文并未说Y地区是污染导致两栖减少。这里你自己又多推理了一步。我再来分析一下这个思路：
原来说Y两栖减少是因为t鱼，现在全球两栖都减少了（这个就没有证据了），不能说全球都是t鱼闹的，只能是污染，因为污染是全球性的，所以y地区也是由于污染导致的（最后这个是你反复在说的）。
可以看出，前面就有问题了，然后得出一个错误结论，再由错误结论又得出一个错误推理。我觉得是不是更多应该关注前面错误结论的得出，而不是后面这个错误推理呢？大家讨论。

Besides, the conclusion of Yosemite is further flawed by neglecting other possible factors. For instance, during the long period between studies cited in the argument, these species of amphibians are in danger by natural selection, for the absence of appropriate living skill and ability of adapting to changing environment. The same is true of damage brought by visitors ,perhaps because of Yosemite National Park being opened to the[去掉。复数前面一般不需要加the，不用特指] visitors, the health of amphibians would be weakened, given that the living custom would be disturbed. If either scenario above is the case, the assertion would be groundless[似乎不是groundless吧，是unreasonable吧……].

进化论其实不是很好的理由，毕竟时间不长，只有几十年而已。要是什么物种在几十年就能大幅衰减，这个恐怕不是进化论的问题了。其他人为原因导致数量减少也是有可能的。可以算是一个方面，这个用来作为反驳不是t鱼就是污染这个逻辑问题的一个他因。

Simply put, the arguer fails to convince me on the correlation between the global pollution of waterand air and the worldwide decreased amphibians.

结尾很简洁。其实不用结尾都是可以的。不见得整个就是必须。


总体看，语言上没有什么问题了，但是就是注意一下有的句子太长但是中间又逗号什么的，感觉语义很零散。长句写出来也是要保证语义连贯的。不必要非强迫自己写多长的句子。短句现在看来写的是没啥问题了，然后就先写中长句，最后再写超长句。一步一步来。

思路方面，有一些我的看法都放在段内分析了。另外就是，三段说的三个问题，TS的作用不是很明显。也可能是我个人看法啊，我比较倾向能有一上来就直接表明自己态度看法观点的东西，然后下面内容紧紧围绕这个来展开，不跑题。老外不太喜欢看那种前面说了好多最后来一句点睛这样的东西吧……嗯，个人看法，个人看法～ :)

liyue24UID: 2350787

我能问问，你们讨论这个是为了什么么？“我们讨论的结果是不质疑全球amphibians有没有减少，而是trout是不是有影响amphibians数量。”？

不论说什么都是要有一定目的性的。不论Y公园是不是t鱼影响了两栖的数量，全球范围是不会因为t鱼造成两栖数量减少的。仔细再回味一下作者思路，以及他说的每句话的目的是什么。
我来根据你这个提纲再谈一点我自己的看法。



版主：我们讨论的结果是不质疑全球amphibians有没有减少，而是trout是不是有影响amphibians数量。

不同的用下划线标注了的(还有就是段落顺序有变化）
新提纲：

1.其实作者的前提是不成立的：作者首先假设YNP是由于污染，但是不一定[原文有首先假设Y是由于污染么？我觉得没有吧，他就是得出这样的结论的。结论和假设是不同的两个概念，一个是前提一个是结果。所以这里最好把握好方向。]：首先，其实可能是YN由于trout(毕竟trout要吃蛋是正常的）（简单提一下）；其次，不是trout的原因导致decline，不能说明就是pollution，并没有污染的信息提供，或者是污染严重到使amphibians大量减少（重要论述）[还是那句话，讨论为什么Y的两栖减少要抓准方向。这个是一个推理的最后一步延伸推论，而我个人觉得，更应该关注的是前面的部分。]

2.可能是其他原因，比如自然选择，游客的破坏[同上，Y的只是一个特例，具体这个细节是为了别的服务的。]

3.即使YN污染是真的，却把结论扩散到worldwide，相当于假设了YN和Worldwide 情况一样，其实可能是由于YN是在工业区，污染严重[一定要重点强调Y的特殊性和不可推广性，把这个强调了，就能充分说明为啥不能从Y的情况推理出全球都不这样了。但是还是那句话，全球污染是从全球两栖动物数量减少推过来的，直接说Y污染推到全球污染，这个不是很fit原文作者逻辑。个人不建议这么说。]