ARGUMENT150 还是A超时了啊,觉得比较难

firhadayUID: 2287086

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: 604          TIME: 00:42:58          DATE: 2008-2-29 20:15:17

The author attributed the worldwide decline of amphibian to the pollutions. He/she cited the comparison of numbers and species studied in 1915 and 1992. Also, he/she thought the introduction of trouts could not serve to the decrease of amphibian world wide. Though the argument is well presented, the author made some unfair assumption that makes his argument unconvincing.

To begin, the author failed to offer two reliable studies, which makes his conclusion fragile. The author pointed in the argument that there are only four species of amphibian in the Y River observed in the second study. But he/she failed to figure whether they observed is the truth, there might be other possibilities of these two missing species, such as the facts that they immigrated to another place, another river to born the next generation when the study is carried out. If that is the truth, the four observed species could serve as evidence for the decline of amphibian in Y river. Besides, the author fails to provide the details about the method of measuring the numbers of amphibian. If the observation is made by watching the amphibian from the bank along the river, that would lead the questionable of this study. Without more details about the study could be offered, I am in skepticism of the author's argument.

Even though the number of amphibian declined, another fundamental problem with this argument is that the author failed to prove it is the not due to the existence of trout that makes the decrease. Trout, as mentioned, would eat the amphibian eggs. Perhaps the introduction of trout makes them grow too much in Y, which leading them to eat more amphibian eggs. As a result, there would be leading to the decline. Though the author strengthen his argument by pointing that it could explain the worldwide decline, the author still do not stand firmly with his arguments, because he/she might also do not offer the evidence that there might some trout introduced into the places where amphibian lived in, not to mention the author provided the evidence that the trout would only live here. If there are trout elsewhere around the world in the places of residential areas of amphibian, there would be a decline of amphibian.

Furthermore, the author ignored some direct evidence or relevance between the decline of amphibian and the global pollution, which makes his/her attribution the decline to the pollution problematic. It is possible some other factors to decrease the numbers of amphibians, such as lacking of food they rely on and change of climate that makes them not fit for their living. Maybe because the change of weather, especially the change of temperature, leads the food (some kind of algies maybe) to grow less than before, while, at the same time, there happened to be more animals in the river feeding on this kind of algae, that means, the amphibian would have more competition for the food and more likely to lack the food. If this is the case, the changing of weather and lacking of food could be some other possibilities of the decline. Therefore, before the author provided the direct evidence linking the decline to the pollution, I cannot agree with this argument.

To sum up, the author raised a conclusion but failed to give out the direct evidence linking the decline to the pollution that would make his /her argument unconvincing. To strengthen it, the author should provide detailed evidence for the species and numbers of amphibian in Y River. Also the author should consider more possibilities for the decline and compared to the effects of pollution brought about.

[ 本帖最后由 firhaday 于 2008-3-1 00:06 编辑 ]

fainting_robinUID: 2336582

The author attributed the worldwide decline of amphibian to the pollutions. He/she cited the comparison of numbers and species studied in 1915 and 1992. Also, he/she thought the introduction of trouts could not serve to the decrease of amphibian world wide. Though the argument is well presented, the author made some unfair assumption that makes his argument unconvincing.To begin, the author failed to offer two reliable studies, which makes his conclusion fragile. The author pointed in the argument that there are only four species of amphibian in the Y River observed in the second study. But he/she failed to figure whether they observed is the truth, there might be other possibilities of these two missing species, such as the facts that they immigrated to another place,[很好的它因，如果能补充一句，可能当地气候有所变化，所以部分对气温要求高的SPECIES发生了迁徙感觉更完整 ] another river to born the next generation when the study is carried out. If that is the truth, the four observed species could serve as evidence for the decline of amphibian in Y river. Besides, the author fails to provide the details about the method of measuring the numbers of amphibian. If the observation is made by watching the amphibian from the bank along the river, that would lead the questionable of this study. Without more details about the study could be offered, I am in skepticism of the author's argument.Even though the number of amphibian declined, another fundamental problem with this argument is that the author failed to prove it is the not due to the existence of trout that makes the decrease. Trout, as mentioned, would eat the amphibian eggs. Perhaps the introduction of trout makes them grow too much in Y, which leading them to eat more amphibian eggs. As a result, there would be leading to the decline. Though the author strengthen his argument by pointing that it could explain the worldwide decline, the author still do not stand firmly with his arguments, because he/she might also do not offer the evidence that there might some trout introduced into the places where amphibian lived in, not to mention the author provided the evidence that the trout would only live here. If there are trout elsewhere around the world in the places of residential areas of amphibian, there would be a decline of amphibian.[我觉得吧，这个tout鱼也不是不能批，但最好有保留的批评，即由于它吃EGGES那么它必然对Y河两栖类的数目减少负责，这样，至少说用Y地的调查数据去代表全国的就不可靠了，因为即使我们承认了污染的作用，当地的数目锐减还得考虑TOUT鱼的贡献。这样就推导到一个问题，全球性两栖类的DECLINE具体是多少？会不会是可接受范围内的正常波动？或者这种减少趋势出现了多久？如果之前还是递增，就近几年减少的话，就很难归于污染，因为污染必然是年年加重。可能是由于前两年数目过多，内部竞争激烈，食物不够。。。恰如你的下一段]Furthermore, the author ignored some direct evidence or relevance between the decline of amphibian and the global pollution, which makes his/her attribution the decline to the pollution problematic. It is possible some other factors to decrease the numbers of amphibians, such as lacking of food they rely on and change of climate that makes them not fit for their living. Maybe because the change of weather, especially the change of temperature, leads the food (some kind of algies maybe) to grow less than before, while, at the same time, there happened to be more animals in the river feeding on this kind of algae, that means, the amphibian would have more competition for the food and more likely to lack the food. If this is the case, the changing of weather and lacking of food could be some other possibilities of the decline. Therefore, before the author provided the direct evidence linking the decline to the pollution, I cannot agree with this argument.To sum up, the author raised a conclusion but failed to give out the direct evidence linking the decline to the pollution that would make his /her argument unconvincing. To strengthen it, the author should provide detailed evidence for the species and numbers of amphibian in Y River. Also the author should consider more possibilities for the decline and compared to the effects of pollution brought about.

我主要看了论证思路，语言上细节没有仔细看。我的同题还没完成，回头有空欢迎拍砖~~

ustcroadUID: 2374537

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: 604          TIME: 00:42:58          DATE: 2008-2-29 20:15:17

The author attributed the worldwide decline of amphibian to the pollutions. He/she cited the comparison of numbers and species studied in 1915 and 1992. Also, he/she thought the introduction of trouts could not serve to the decrease of amphibian world wide. Though the argument is well presented, the author made some unfair assumption that makes his argument unconvincing.

To begin, the author failed to offer two reliable studies, which makes his conclusion fragile. The author pointed[points out一律用现在时] in the argument that there are only four species of amphibian in the Y River observed in the second study. But he/she failed[fails] to figure[out] whether [what]they observed is the truth,[and] there might be other possibilities (of)[to explain] these two missing species, such as the facts that[不是fact,是你的假设而已，可以说It is entirelly possible that...或者Perhaps...之类，如果写长句子功夫不到家的话不妨写成短句子】] they immigrated to another place, [or]another river to (born)[give birth to] the next generation when the study (is)[was] carried out. If that is the truth, the four observed species[这里不精确，应该是the results of the two serveys] could[not] serve as evidence for the decline of amphibian in Y river. Besides, the author fails to provide the details about the method of measuring the numbers of amphibian. If the observation is made by watching the amphibian from the bank along the river, （that would lead the questionable of this study）有点别扭啊. （Without more details about the study could be offered, I am in skepticism of the author's argument.）[这句语病啊~Without more details about the study , author's argument is open to doubt 或If more details about the study could not be offered, I am in skepticism of the author's argument而且in skepticism of 这个用法我没见过，可能是我孤陋寡闻了]

Even though the number of amphibian declined, another fundamental problem with this argument is that the author failed【fails】 to prove 【that】it is （the）删 not （due to ）the existence of trout that （makes）【has made】 the decrease. Trout, as mentioned, would eat （the）删 amphibian eggs. Perhaps the introduction of trout makes【made】 them grow too much in Y, which leading them to eat more amphibian eggs. As a result, there would be leading to the decline. Though the author strengthen his argument by pointing that it could explain the worldwide decline, the author still do not stand firmly with his arguments, because he/she might also do not offer the evidence that there might some trout introduced into the places where amphibian lived in, not to mention the author provided the evidence that the trout would only live here. If there are trout elsewhere around the world in the places of residential areas of amphibian, there would be a decline of amphibian.【我觉得，关于trout的批驳重点是because it does not explain the worldwide decline这句，楼主的角度是找it does not explain the worldwide declines的茬，我觉得更大的问题是这个because,就是说不能因为这个解释不能解释普遍问题就说他不能解释具体问题】

Furthermore, the author ignored some direct evidence or relevance between the decline of amphibian and the global pollution, which makes his/her attribution the decline to the pollution problematic. 【这句话1.不能用ignor啊，意思全反了，可以用fails to provide 什么的，2.后面的从句没看懂，3.时态】It is possible some other factors to decrease the numbers of amphibians, such as lacking of food they rely on and change of climate that makes them not fit for their living. Maybe because the change of weather, especially the change of temperature, leads the food (some kind of algies maybe) to grow less than before, while, at the same time, there happened to be more animals in the river feeding on this kind of algae, that means, the amphibian would have more competition for the food and more likely to lack the food. If this is the case, the changing of weather and lacking of food could be some other possibilities of the decline. Therefore, before the author provided the direct evidence linking the decline to the pollution, I cannot agree with this argument.这里最大的错误其实是一个‘either-or' reasoning, 指出这点，然后两个分论点。1.没有证据说是因为pollution。2. 没有排除其他可能性，这样论证更有力一点，你说呢？

To sum up, the author raised a conclusion but failed to give out the direct evidence linking the decline to the pollution that would make his /her argument unconvincing. To strengthen it, the author should provide detailed evidence for the species and numbers of amphibian in Y River. Also the author should consider more possibilities for the decline and compared to the effects of pollution brought about.

给楼主提几个建议：1. 文章中有几个语法错误不必太放心上，因为ETS也不太放心上，但是像时态错误这些低级问题绝对不可以太多啊，像楼主这样会给改卷人很差的印象，所以这个问题还是要重视起来呢。关于author 的动词一律要用一般现在时的，调查之类的时态和题目一致。而且楼主一句话中还有时态不一致的问题~
2. 句子写的太长，如果正确的话当然没问题，可是如果不能保证正确的话还是写短句吧，至少老美看得懂啊，其实只要思想好逻辑好，简单句也能拿高分呢~~
语言上的问题我只改了前半部分，后面大致也就类似的错误，所以没有细改。
思路上的建议写在段尾了，总体思路还不错，如果能考虑到各段间的联系就更好了。

以上是个人建议，有些地方可能并不正确，欢迎和我讨论，有些话可能说的重了点，望见谅~~不会用颜色，所以看起来可能累了点……
加油！共同进步！