argument45 请猛拍，必回拍

staroceanUID: 2271193

argument45  The following appeared as an editorial in a wildlife journal.

"Arctic deer live on islands in Canada's arctic region. They search for food by moving over ice from island to island during the course of a year. Their habitat is limited to areas warm enough to sustain the plants on which they feed, and cold enough, at least some of the year, for the ice to cover the sea separating the islands, allowing the deer to travel over it. Unfortunately, according to reports from local hunters, the deer populations are declining. Since these reports coincide with recent global warming trends that have caused the sea ice to melt, we can conclude that the decline in arctic deer populations is the result of deer being unable to follow their age-old migration patterns across the frozen sea."

前提：北极鹿生活在加拿大北极比较的地区，长期以来通过地区的温度不能太冷也不能太热，温暖程度必须达到可以有食物，但还得冷到让鹿可以通过冰移动以寻找食物。
1．           猎人报告，鹿少了
2．           全球变暖→→冰融化→→鹿不能迁徙→→鹿的数量减少。


提纲：
１．        全球变暖是不是足以影响鹿的迁徙，很难说
变暖可能是会导致一部分冰融化，但是融化了多少，是不是对鹿的移动造成了巨大的影响不知道，可能根本就没融化多少鹿还是能迁徙。
２．        就算变暖对于鹿的迁徙造成了巨大影响，也不一定足以导致鹿的减少。
首先不能因为以前一直迁徙就认为迁徙是必要的。变暖可能对鹿有好处，因为我们知道，鹿需要植物来生活，暖了，冬天等冷的时候食物就不会减少，那么鹿可能根本就不用迁徙了，数量也不会少。就算必须迁徙，不能迁徙可能也不是导致鹿死亡的决定因素，其他因素：过渡捕杀，污染，食物链被破坏，植被破坏，天敌增多，天敌的其他可捕食的物种的减少。。。。
３．        此外，对于鹿的减少的描述过于模糊
猎人的报告可能也不准确，可能是他们自身的原因，捕猎的地点等（鹿不再出现在他们的捕猎地点，时间内等）就算报告准确，但缺少具体数字，不知道到底少了多少，是不是足以有统计代表性。

In this argument , the author attempts to convince us that the decline in arctic deer populations can be attribute to the recent global warming trends which have caused the sea ice to melt and thereby obstruct deer from moving over ice. However, the evidence presented throughout the argument is vague and hence does not lend strong support to what the author claims.

First of all, the recommendation is based on two unsubstantiated assumptions. The first one is that the effect global warming trends have done to ice is able to prevent deer from moving across ice. It is true that the warming trends may do some affection to ice. However, absent information concerning the extent and power of globe warming trends, it is highly possible that by taking the advantage of the  extraordinary cold temperature of arctic area, the ice there avoids that trends and does not melt at all. Even granted that the ice does melt, it may just melt too slightly to make any trouble to the deer’s travel. Or perhaps the deer are so desperate to search for food, they may just swim or jump a little to reach the smaller ice. Unless the author can provide strong evidence to assure that the ice is melted so seriously that deer can not continue their travel, he or she cannot draw any conclusion based on this assumption.

Even assuming the deer cannot travel any more because of the warming trends, the argument rests in the second assumption that no travel means to die to the deer. For one thing, given that deer’s habitat is limited to areas warm enough to sustain the plants on which they feed, now that the global warming trends can make ice melt dramatically, it may also help to raise temperature to sustain plants. As long as there are enough food for living, deer may not have to travel anymore. At the same time, this assumption overlooks some other factors may lead to the deer’s decline instead of no travel, which may include that, over hunting, environmental pollution, decrease of food, or some damage to deer’s food chain. It appears reasonable , therefore, these changes caused the decline instead of warming rends or melting ice.

Additionally, I have to point out that there is another vague evidence cited by the author, which is that some local hunters reported the deer population are declining. How many hunters gave this report? How many deer populations exactly declined? Are these numbers representative in statistics? Given no answer to these questions, then it is possible that a disproportionate number of hunters contributed to this report, rendering them biased and therefore unreliable. Moreover, only by provided the hunters’ report, it is still hard to tell whether the deer’s number reduced or not. Perhaps, deer are more familiar with hunters’ hunting time and region then successfully avoid them, which lead to the hunters’ mistake that the whole population of deer is missing.

In conclusion, the author’s conclusion is not convincing as it stands. To bolster this recommendation, the author has to provide more evidence that the deer population do decline and the  global warming trends work effectively to cause the ice melt so seriously that deer cannot travel over it anymore. Still before I accept the final conclusion, the author must present more facts concerning whether deer must survive by travel across ice and whether some other factors force them to die.

浩梓UID: 2125625

In this argument , the author attempts to convince us that the decline in arctic deer populations can be attribute/attributed to the recent global warming trends which have caused the sea ice to melt and thereby obstruct/obstructed Arctic deer from moving over ice. However, the evidence presented throughout the argument is vague and hence does not lend strong support to what the author claims.

First of all, the recommendation is based on two unsubstantiated assumptions. The first one is that the effect global warming trends have done to/produced on ice is able to prevent deer from moving across ice. It is true that the warming trends may do some affection to ice/result in the melting of ice. However, absent/without sufficient information concerning the extent and power of globe warming trends, it is highly possible that by taking the advantage of/because of the  extraordinary cold temperature of arctic area, the ice there avoids/makes an exception of that trends and does not melt at all. Even granted that the ice does melt, it may just melt too slightly to make any trouble to the deer’s travel. Or perhaps the deer are so desperate to search for food that they may just swim or jump a little to reach the smaller ice. Unless the author can provide strong evidence to assure that the ice is melted so seriously that deer can not continue their travel, he or she cannot draw any conclusion based on this assumption.

Even assuming the deer cannot travel any more because of the warming trends, the argument rests in the second assumption that no travel means to die to the deer.The second assumption that no travel means to die for the deer is unreasonable. For one thing, given that deer’s habitat is limited to areas warm enough to sustain the plants on which they feed, now that the global warming trends can make ice melt dramatically, it may also help to raise temperature to sustain plants. As long as there are enough food for living, deer may not have to travel anymore. At the same time, this assumption overlooks some other factors may lead to the deer’s decline instead of no travel, which may include that, over hunting, environmental pollution, decrease of food, or some damage to deer’s food chain. It appears reasonable , therefore, that these changes have caused the decline instead of warming trends or melting ice. //这段的主题句是no travel does not means die但是后面半段是关于其它引起鹿群数量减少的其它原因，个人觉得另起一段会更好

Additionally, I have to point out that there is another vague evidence cited by the author, which is that some local hunters reported the deer population are declining/a report from local hunters concerning the declining population of arctic deer. How many hunters gave this report? How many deer populations exactly declined? Are these numbers representative in statistics? Given no answer to these questions, then it is possible that a disproportionate number of hunters contributed to this report, rendering them/it 应该是报告而不是猎人偏颇和不可信biased and therefore unreliable. Moreover, only by provided/providing the hunters’ report, it is still hard to tell whether the deer’s number reduced or not. Perhaps, deer are more familiar with hunters’ hunting time and region then successfully avoid them, which lead to the hunters’ mistake that the whole population of deer is missing/minishing.

In conclusion, the author’s conclusion is not convincing as it stands. To bolster this recommendation, the author has to provide more evidence that the deer population do decline and the global warming trends work effectively to cause the ice melt so seriously that deer cannot travel over it anymore. Still before I accept the final conclusion, the author must present more facts concerning whether deer must survive by travel across ice and whether there are some other factors force/forcing them to die.

楼主分析问题的思路值得我学习，改得不当之处请指正
有时间帮我看一下我刚写的一篇ISSUE吧：）
https://bbs.gter.net/viewthread.php?tid=595692&extra=page%3D1

[ 本帖最后由 浩梓 于 2007-1-20 21:50 编辑 ]

staroceanUID: 2271193

谢谢楼上 呵呵
语法等单词的改正帮了我很多，我怎么查都查不出来。。。。。。。。
另起一段的那个，我一开始也这么想过，但是因为他因也好，和不能迁徙不是原因其实也是一个层面上的，而且分开写，两段都会显得有一点点空，所以就凑在一起了。不过建议还是很好。

非常感谢

浩梓UID: 2125625

恩,这个问题我写A的时候也经常在犹豫,有时候两个原因联系是很多的,可是放在一段论述又觉得逻辑没那么明确.由于时间所限另起一段会使两段都不够具体.看了一些北美范文觉得有的文章段落也挺短的.但是怎样做更好呢?
大家给点建议吧!

staroceanUID: 2271193

我觉得一个层面上的错误是可以也应该放在一起说的。除非因为两个角度分别又都说了很多个层次，才可以分开写。
北美的坏处就是空话很多，每一段都很空，个人不太推荐的，
这个文里面。
因为不迁徙不一定就死，其实我是从两个角度说，1是不迁徙不是死的必要条件，可能不迁徙也活的好好的。2。是不迁徙不是死的充分条件，还有别的因素可以起作用导致数量减少。

因为两个我觉得分开写都说不了特别多，也不好再分层了就放在一起的，不过如果能分别写的很充分分开写也无所谓了。

其实这个无所谓的。

浩梓UID: 2125625

star的话很有道理，主要是层次分明．比如说此文的两个层面重要的是要把充分和必要这两个区别又联系的关系在文中表现出来，这样看的人就不会糊涂了，我知道了
但是北美的范文又不可靠了吗？我都不知道在哪儿找可以做标准来参考的资料了．

staroceanUID: 2271193

不是说不可靠阿，大都还是非常可靠呢。
但是有的写的有点空而已，有的空话有点多呵呵
不要过分迷信北美就好了。
其实可以改改北美的文当练手，呵呵
我也常看北美的。

浩梓UID: 2125625

恩,谢谢指教:handshake