argument45 【kaleidoscope】小组第二次作业

网兜妮妮UID: 2612538

45
The author fails to give enough evidence to prove that the decline in arctic deer population is the result of deer unable to across the frozen sea to find food. There are three reasons, 1) the report from the hunter about the decrease of the number of deer; 2) the coincidence with global warming which cause to sea ice to melt. However, these two evidences need more specific details to use as the reasons to support the conclusion.

Firstly, the author lacks the evidence about the true number of the deer and therefore, only based on the report of local hunters, we cannot have an accurate massage. may be the population of dear is not decline but they not appear at the usual place so that the local hunters were hard to find them; or may be the hunters just feel that the deer are not as many as before; or maybe in this months the deer seldom go out, but actually, in a longer period, we can truly observe whether the number is decrease or not. Merely based on the local hunters' report, we cannot eliminate other causes that mislead the hunters to get the massage.

Secondly, even if the hunters' report is true, only because the coincidence with global warming, we cannot conclude it impact on the melt of ice which cause deer hard to go to the worth place to find plant. On one hand, is the global warming raise the temperature which severe enough to melt the ice? If it only raise a little, as 0.1k, but the sea can still frozen? Then, the global warming not destroys the road to deer to go to warm place and never cause the decrease of the population of them. On the other hand, even the raised temperature did can the melt of the ice, is that means the ice were never froze in a year? The article indicate that deer need to go across the frozen ice to the warm place only in some time of the year, so, if the ice can be frozen in the very tome to let the deer travel over, the global warming not that influenced the population of deer as the author shows.

Thirdly, though the two points above are right, it is not the only right cause contribute to the decline of deer population. The author indicates the conclusion is the result of deer being unable to follow their age-old migration patterns across the frozen sea. Yet, there lack evidence to show it is the right reason. Maybe the cause is hunters’ over kill, or the illness of deer itself or the pollution of drink water and the decrease of its food, any reasons is possible before more evidence to prove one of it. Even global warming is one reason; it lacks evidence to show it is the only reason.

In sum, the recommendation of the author is not well supported. To strength the analysis, the evidence of the decrease of the number of deer should be confirmed, and the argument's proponent must consider and eliminate all other possible explanations for the cause of the decline of the population of deer. Moreover, the author need to clearly measure the real raise of the temperature result in global warming to indicate whether the ice being melt to forbid the deer to travel over as usual.

wdassfmUID: 2542447

1# 网兜妮妮
The author fails to give enough evidence to prove that the decline in arctic deer population is the result of deer unable to (travel) across the frozen sea to find food. There are three(two or three?) reasons(觉得用reason与下面的衔接不好，下面并不是针对why lack evidence的说明，而是实际缺少的证据), 1) the report from the hunter about the decrease of the number of deer; 2) the coincidence with global warming which cause to sea ice to melt. (这种结构很好，我还没用过，呵呵~)However, these two evidences need more specific details to use as the reasons to support the conclusion.

Firstly, the author lacks the evidence about the true number of the deer and therefore, only based on the report of local hunters, we cannot have an accurate massage(message). May be the population of dear is not decline(declining) but they (did) not appear at the usual place so that the local hunters were hard to find them(觉得这点不大有说服力，既然猎人说are declining，他们以前必然是可以找到这些鹿的，可以考虑说它们现在不常出了，再给出explanation); or may be the hunters just feel that the deer are not as many as before;(feel?) or maybe in this months the deer seldom go out(why not go out?后面两点似乎展开不够), but actually, in a longer period(我咋没想到时间捏？), we can truly observe whether the number is decrease(decreasing) or not. Merely based on the local hunters' report, we cannot eliminate other causes that mislead the hunters to get the massage.(呵呵，这种句型记住了O(∩_∩)O~)

Secondly, even if the hunters' report is true, only because the coincidence with global warming, we cannot conclude it impact(impacts) on the melt of ice which cause deer hard to go to the worth place to find plant. On one hand, is the global warming raise the temperature which severe enough to melt the ice?(What if)If it only raise a little, as(say) 0.1k, but the sea can still frozen? Then, the global warming not destroys(汗~貌似LZ很容易出人称和助动词的疏忽哦~) the road to deer to go to warm place and never cause the decrease of the population of them. On the other hand, even the raised temperature did can the melt of the ice, is that means the ice were never froze in a year? The article indicate that deer need to go across the frozen ice to the warm place only in some time of the year, so, if the ice can be frozen in the very tome to let the deer travel over, the global warming not that influenced the population of deer as the author shows.(这点lz可以想的这么细致，很强大)

Thirdly, though(用assuming吧,though有已经是事实的感觉) the two points above are right, it is not the only right(还有wrong的可以contribute to吗？建议删去) cause contribute(contributing) to the decline of deer population. The author indicates the conclusion is the result of deer being unable to follow their age-old migration patterns across the frozen sea. Yet, there lack evidence to show it is the right reason(主语？). Maybe the cause is hunters’ overkill, or the illness of deer itself(?) or the pollution of drink water and the decrease of its food, any reasons is possible before more evidence to prove one of it. Even global warming is one reason; it lacks evidence to show it is the only reason.(表达很随意，很好)

In sum, the recommendation of the author is not well supported. To strength the analysis, the evidence of the decrease of the number of deer should be
confirmed(学到新东西咯！), and the argument's proponent must consider and eliminate all other possible explanations for the cause of the decline of the population of deer. Moreover, the author need to clearly measure the real raise of the temperature result in global warming to indicate whether the ice being melt to forbid the deer to travel over as usual.

Argu不好写也不好改，但是真的学到很多，都在文中啦O(∩_∩)O~