argument 150 附提纲 有拍必回

xinxinzi0719UID: 182812

ARGUMENT 150 - 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。反驳鲑鱼的引入不是两栖动物减少的原因
2。批驳从1915到1992这段时间两栖动物的减少是因为水和大气污染
3。不能个体代表整体

The author concludes that a worldwide reduction of the amphibians is attributed to the pollution of water and air, based on his/her two researches in Yosemite National Park showing that the number of amphibians declined from 1915 to 1992. The author also eliminates the belief that it is the introduction of trout that caused the decline for it cannot apply to the global decline. The argument seems logical, however, after a close scrutiny, the argument suffers from a serious fallacies.

To begin with, the argument relies on the assumption that introducing the trout did not contribute to the decline of numbers of amphibians in Yosemite for its limited application region. It is a pity that the author does not provide sufficient evidences to support this assumption. The author fails to claim other alternative reasons for this decline such as water and air pollution and therefore it is unwarranted to eliminate the introduction of trout as the reason for the decline.

Even assuming that the number of amphibians reduced as a result of the water and air pollution not the introduction of trout, the argument  is still unconvincing for the sharply contrast of the population of amphibians in 1915 and 1992. From 1915 to 1992 is such a long period that the disappearance of some species of amphibians might due to the fact these species did not fit the environment gradually and eventually being get rid of by the nature. The law of evolution that is the fittest live best illustrates this point. Or perhaps it is the human caught that caused the reduction of species and numbers of the amphibians. Without ruling out all the possible reasons for the decline, the author cannot attribute the reduction to the water and air pollution.

Finally, even if all the assumptions above are well-reasoned, the decline of amphibians in Yosemite does not necessarily apply to the global situation. It is quite possible that in other areas that the number of amphibians increases steadily from 1915 to 1992.Consequently, the single sample in Yosemite is inadequate to draw any general conclusion about the decline of the population of amphibians worldwide.

In sum, the argument is unpersuasive as it stands. To bolster the argument, the author must show the outcome of the research on the premise without the introduction of trout and data of how the water and air pollution actually influence the population of amphibians in Yosemite National Park. And the sample in Yosemite is representative enough of the global situation.

abobibbyUID: 2174676

ARGUMENT 150 - 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。反驳鲑鱼的引入不是两栖动物减少的原因
2。批驳从1915到1992这段时间两栖动物的减少是因为水和大气污染
3。不能个体代表整体

The author concludes that a worldwide reduction of the amphibians is attributed to the pollution of water and air, based(是不是应该用basing on) on his/her two researches (不能这样写，不是作者的research)in Yosemite National Park showing that the number(and species) of amphibians declined from 1915 to 1992. The author also eliminates the belief that it is the introduction of trout that caused the decline for it cannot apply to the global decline. The argument seems logical, however, after a close scrutiny, the argument suffers from a serious fallacies.

To begin with, the argument relies on the assumption that introducing the trout did not contribute to the decline of numbers of amphibians in Yosemite for its limited application region. It is a pity (很少看到在argument里这样写的）that the author does not provide sufficient evidences to support this assumption. The author fails to claim other alternative reasons for this decline such as water and air pollution and therefore it is unwarranted to eliminate the introduction of trout as the reason for the decline.

Even assuming that the number of amphibians reduced as a result of the water and air pollution not the introduction of trout（觉得有些衔接不上，在上一段中并没有提到water和air pollution)，, the argument  is still unconvincing for the sharply contrast of the population of amphibians in 1915 and 1992. (From 1915 to 1992 is such a long period that the disappearance of some species of amphibians might due to the fact these species did not fit the environment gradually and eventually being get rid of by the nature. （觉得这个写法不好）The law of evolution that is the fittest live best illustrates this point. Or perhaps it is the human caught that caused the reduction of species and numbers of the amphibians. Without ruling out all the possible reasons for the decline, the author cannot attribute the reduction to the water and air pollution.

Finally, even if all the assumptions above are well-reasoned, the decline of amphibians in Yosemite does not necessarily apply to the global situation. It is quite possible that in other areas that the number of amphibians increases steadily from 1915 to 1992.Consequently, the single sample in Yosemite is inadequate to draw any general conclusion about the decline of the population of amphibians worldwide.

In sum, the argument is unpersuasive as it stands. To bolster the argument, the author must show the outcome of the research on the premise without the introduction of trout and data of how the water and air pollution actually influence the population of amphibians in Yosemite National Park. And the sample in Yosemite is representative enough of the global situation.

我觉得这篇argument的逻辑错误并不是直线形的，适用一环套一环的写法并不好。这篇文章的结构应该从区分事实和推测下手。

我的作业https://bbs.gter.net/viewthre ... &extra=page%3D1也请你看看吧