(感谢firhaday！)Argument150

jeansfaneUID: 2370937

TOPIC: 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."
WORDS: 333          TIME: 00:30:00          DATE: 2008-2-28 13:28:37

The arguer concludes that the decline in the numbers of amphibians indicates the worldwide pollution of water and air, by providing a result of two studies in Yosemite National Park in California. To convince readers, the arguer also eliminates a possible factor, the introduction of trout. However, it is the trout becomes one of the logical faults in this argument.

As the arguer mentioned, trout was considered to be the main factor of the decline of the amphibians for trout eat amphibian eggs but it cannot explain the worldwide decline. This assertion is unpersuasive because it cannot be eliminated in the YNP examples. Without exclude the introduction of trout, we cannot attribute the decline of amphibians in the YNP to the pollution of water and air.

Even if the introduction of trout is not the real reason of decline of amphibians in YNP, the attribution to the water and air is not reasonable, because there are many other possible factors such as the temperature of the water, the number of food of the amphibians and human's hunting behavior. The arguer has to eliminate all the other factors to conclude a causal relation between the pollution and the decline numbers of amphibians.

Another problem with the argument is that the decline in the numbers of amphibians in YNP cannot be generalized to the worldwide decline in hasty. The number of YNP is just one sample of the globe. Even though the decline in YNP can attribute to the pollution of water and air in this area, it is unreasonable to infer that in the worldwide situations.

In sum, the arguer fails to confirm his judgment about the relationship between the worldwide decline of amphibians and the pollution of water and air. To enhance this argument, the significant associations between the amphibians and the pollutions based the statistics of a larger sample is needed. If the arguer deeply analysis the changing of some materials the amphibians need in the water, his conclusion will be more convincing.

[ 本帖最后由 jeansfane 于 2008-3-2 23:13 编辑 ]

firhadayUID: 2287086

先占,明天看

firhadayUID: 2287086

The arguer concludes that the decline in the numbers of amphibians indicates the worldwide pollution of water and air, by providing a result of two studies in Yosemite National Park in California. To convince readers, the arguer also eliminates a possible factor, the introduction of trout. However, it is the trout becomes one of the logical faults in this argument.

As the arguer mentioned, trout was considered to be the main factor of the decline of the amphibians for trout eat amphibian eggs but it cannot explain the worldwide decline. This assertion is unpersuasive because it cannot be eliminated in the YNP examples.???这样的论证很单一,而且没有说服力,这样和你说吧,你说"T鱼造成的下降不能代表全球范围内的下降" 是不对的,因为它不能说明全球范围内的T鱼的数量.那么全球范围内,T鱼是怎么样的呢?又造成了什么样子的后果呢?你的分析不具体也是导致字数不多的原因之一. Without exclude the introduction of trout, we cannot attribute the decline of amphibians in the YNP to the pollution of water and air.
在段落内,应该有反例,和更详细的说明,论述,而不是纯粹的一句话说明问题,多看看范文吧,(ETS官方的)
Even if the introduction of trout is not the real reason of decline of amphibians in YNP, the attribution to the water and air is not reasonable, because there are many other possible factors such as the temperature of the water, the number of food of the amphibians and human's hunting behavior. 同样的道理,这个三个做了什么了呢?写清楚,就会有好的A出来了The arguer has to eliminate all the other factors to conclude a causal relation between the pollution and the decline numbers of amphibians.

Another problem with the argument is that the decline in the numbers of amphibians in YNP cannot be generalized to the worldwide decline in hasty. The number of YNP is just one sample of the globe. Even though the decline in YNP can attribute to the pollution of water and air in this area, it is unreasonable to infer that in the worldwide situations.
同样的问题啊,展开.,,,,,鉴于你现在的情况,我建议你不要限定时间了,然后把文章和范文对比下,再和论坛上的高分习作对比下,自然就会知道自己的问题了.
In sum, the arguer fails to confirm his judgment about the relationship between the worldwide decline of amphibians and the pollution of water and air. To enhance this argument, the significant associations between the amphibians and the pollutions based the statistics of a larger sample is needed. If the arguer deeply analysis the changing of some materials the amphibians need in the water, his conclusion will be more convincing.

开头结尾我就忽略了哦!因为MS都差不多的.....哈哈,这个有问题可以PM来交流
因为自己的一些问题,晚了几天帮你看文章,不好意思
但是我觉得你如果要提高,要做的就是把论证详细化了.
我个人认为你的语言没有很大的问题,而论证深度和论证合理性方面不是很好
通常你就是一句话反驳,然而这个是很不理智的.
打个比方.
我说使徒斑斑造的建筑很帅气.
你说不是的.
然后就说我不觉得TA造的建筑好看.

如果你是使徒,听到这个这个话,你会怎么想?
"嘿嘿,小样,你为什么说我的建筑不好啊"
"你有什么理由吗?有什么证据吗?"

这个时候你会说什么啊?
" 因为这个建筑外型不像地球人造的,没有审美观念,容易让人觉得不爽"
那么使徒斑斑也不能勉强你说要让你一定喜欢,TA也没有什么话好说了.

(使徒不要打我,我在给别人说题目的分析.呵呵!!!)

我举的这个例子,其实就是想说明,如果你要让你的反驳有力,你必须把你的论证细化,至于如何做到,
这个我建议你可以看看论坛上关于将论证深度的帖子.

好吧
就先这点吧,回头有问题,在细说!

jeansfaneUID: 2370937

太感谢了……十分感谢firhaday的建议！
的确我常常为怎么illustrate而苦恼。知道现在应该重点突破什么了。还有十天的时间……希望够用。

加了一些句子，改正如下：
感觉还不够理想。

The arguer concludesthat the decline in the numbers of amphibians indicates the worldwide pollutionof water and air, by providing a result of two studies in YosemiteNational Park in California. To convince readers, the argueralso eliminates a possible factor, the introduction of trout. However, it isthe trout becomes one of the logical faults in this argument.

As the arguer mentioned, trout was considered to be the main factor of thedecline of the amphibians for trout eat amphibian eggs but it cannot explainthe worldwide decline. This assertion is unpersuasive becausethere is no evidence about the situation in YNP. A systematical surveyof the information about changes of amphibians before and after theintroduction of trout will help to find the actual effect of it. Without thiskind of statistics it is unjust to exclude the introduction of trout as mainfactor of the decline of amphibians.
Even if the introduction of trout is not the real reason of decline ofamphibians in YNP, the attribution to the water and air is not reasonable,because there are many other possible factors such as thetemperature of the water, the number of food of the amphibians and human'shunting behavior. For example, the temperature of water may influencethe livability of the new-born of amphibian. Also, if human’s hunting behaviorincreases or the food declines significantly in ＹＮＰ, the amount of amphibians there may decreaseobservably. Without eliminate all these factors the arguer cannot conclude acausal relation between the pollution and the decline numbers of amphibians.

Another problem with the argument is that the decline in the numbers ofamphibians in YNP cannot be generalized to the worldwide decline in hasty. Thenumber of YNP is just one sample of the globe. The worldwide situation may betotally different from YNP, if any information is provided that the YNP is a representativearea of the nation or other areas have the same phenomenon and same condition. Eventhough the decline in YNP can attribute to the pollution of water and air inthis area, it is unreasonable to infer that in the worldwide situations.

In sum, the arguer fails to confirm his judgment about the relationship betweenthe worldwide decline of amphibians and the pollution of water and air. Toenhance this argument, the significant associations between the amphibians andthe pollutions based the statistics of a larger sample is needed. If the arguerdeeply analysis the changing of some materials the amphibians need in thewater, his conclusion will be more convincing.

[ 本帖最后由 jeansfane 于 2008-3-2 23:13 编辑 ]

firhadayUID: 2287086

粗看了眼,B2还不错!加油