|
In this editorial, the editor draw a ostensibly conclusion that the declining trend in Arctic deer chiefly depend on following three difficulties:(1)The islands which were fit to be being is rare;(2)the global warming made the traveling more difficult;(3)some young(你杜撰的吧...题目哪有这个young) deer who were able to complete this migration directly resulted in the number of deer decrease. To analysis the three difficulties, however, not only find them untenable but also reveals that arguer’s conclusion is at stake. The one reason of my disagreement with editor’s conclusion is that whether the area with the appropriate viable condition is decreasing by the global. In editor’s deduction, he hypothesizes that the increasing temperature year and year, due to the global warming, could server to melt the ice to cover separating as a result of checking the deer to traveling. Yet, the arguer did not provide any proof to support this assumption. It is totally possible that the deer discover a novel measure to surmount the difficult that lack a path to islands suiting their being. Moreover, perhaps the climate change bring up the deer’s evolution that make them alternative the habit of food and eat others plant which can suffer more serious cold. Without consideration two other possible facts, the limited area cannot support arguer’ conclusion. The other reason why I suspect the editor’s assertion involve so-called global warming. In the editorial, the global warming just coincided with the declining on the deer populations, the arguer failed to prove that both of them exists cause-result relationship. So the query whether the global is the fact contributing to the decrease on the number of deer, let alone it may be adverse alternative the climate for more suitable live of the deer and even promote the multiply of them. Consider such case, with the temperature rising, the more areas can provide the food for the deer, the deer as a species may also not stand the loss in the traveling. If so, the global warming actually well influenced on improving the number of the deer. Before I draw a conclusion, the some foibles in the conclusion(?指代不明) are necessary to point. First of all, no evidence demonstrate that there is not others fact to lead to decrease on the number of the deer. It is entirely that some virus brutally killed amount of Arctic deer and the virus is not still to be confirmed. Secondly, the editor did not provide the more detail about the hunter report. Without the further and specific information about the report, it can not be convincing. At least but not unimportant, the deer that not followed age-old migration patterns across the frozen sea is more viable than those did. No statistic about the viable rate of the deer not traveling is done. So the arguer is able(unable?...) to affirm that the total number of the deer is declining. In sum, the argument is untenable as it stands. To strength it the arguer must illustrate that area factor certainly limits the deer’s live scope, and some certain areas is only choice for the Arctic. And as to global warming, it must be proved that the ice melting because of temperature rising is prevent the deer from across the sea separating, and the deer not choose other methods to solve it, that is, they must travel to seek the proper living island. Except above mentioned, the editor must solve those flaws to convince me that his evidence is effective and authentic. Until the arguer does that, his conclusion is absolutely untenable and unjustifiable. | 
发表于 2008-7-22 19:46:19
签到领寄托币
GO
转发
