Argument150 同主题写作第二期

wxtxxmUID: 2339833

中文提纲：
一。攻击了调查的可靠性。是否公园的两栖动物数量真的减少了？
二。作者错误假设全球的两栖动物都减少了
三。作者错误假设全球的trout数量都没有增加。
四。即便以上全都成立，但是不能得出全球水和空气污染就是造成两栖动物减少的真正原因
"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: 511         TIME: 00:29:59          DATE: 2008-2-28 11:35:43

In this argument, the editor claims that global pullotion of water and air is the reason of the decreasing in the numbers of amphibians worldwide. Also the editor provides the two studies of amphibian in Yosemite National Park in California, however, in my opinion, I cannot accept the editor's clamation because of such facets as follows.

First of all, the creadibility of the two studies in Yosemite National Park of California is worthy of doubt. Does the number of amphibians in park really decreases? Do not ingore that in the second study, the result of decreasing is got by the means of observing. In such condition, the result of the second study may not reflect the true condition. In addition, the editor fails to give us the detailed information on the process of survey, such as the means of survey, whether the surveyer is academic, and so on.

Secondly, I concede that the number of amphibians decreased trully, but this result cannot be extended in the world wide. The clamation of editor's is based on the assumption that the whole number of amphibian is experiencing a decrease. How can a region's condition reflect the whole world? Perhaps it cannot demonstrate the whole condition of America. Not to say that there are so many differences in various places of whole world, so the conditions of amphibians cannot be the same like the Park. It is entirely possible that the conditions of other places, such as Asia, Europe, Africa, and so forth, are quite opposite to the condition of the park.

Thirdly, the editor's conclusion, which suppose trout is not the reason, is based on such an assumption that the number of trout is not increasing all of the world. In this argument, editor fails to give clear evidence to indicate this assumption. Therefore, the true condition of trout is uncertain all of the world. It is possible that the number of trout is experiencing an increase world wide. Perhaps the number of trout increase in several places while decrease in other places. Extremely, there are few trouts in other places of the world. In such cases, the editor cannot exclude the reason of trout.

Finally, even if the trout is not the reason trully, the editor fails to give strong evidence to support the idea that it is pollution to cause the decreasing of amphibian. The relationship is not either-or between trout and pollution all of the world. Therefore, even though the editor have excluded the possibility of trout, he still cannot get the conclusion that pollution is the reason. There may have other factors which can influence the amphibian's decrease, such as the human being, other animals, even the climate, would be the cause. What a pity, the editor fails to consider such cases. So the result of editor is worthy doubt.

In sum, because of such flaws as mentioned above, the editor fails to persuade me to believe the conclusion. Therefore, the editor should take more deep survey, and then give more information, in order to make the conclusion credible.

loudUID: 2387861

In this argument, the editor claims that global pullotion of water and air is the reason of the decreasing in the numbers of amphibians worldwide. Also the editor provides the two studies of amphibians in Yosemite National Park in California,（这句有问题） however, in my opinion, I cannot accept the editor's clamation because of such facets as follows.First of all, the creadibility of the two studies in Yosemite National Park of California is worthy of doubt. Does the number of amphibians in park really decreases?（反问？缺少前提，设问需要解答）Do not ingore that in the second study, the result of decreasing is got by the means of observing. In such condition, the result of the second study may not reflect the true condition. In addition, the editor fails to give us the detailed information on the process of survey, such as the means of survey, whether the surveyer is academic, and so on.Secondly(这个要和firstly搭配把), I concede that the number of amphibians decreased trully, but this result cannot be extended in(to) the world wide. The clamation of editor's is based on the assumption that the whole number of amphibian is experiencing a decrease. How can a region's condition reflect the whole world?(为什么就不能呢？没有理由支持) Perhaps it cannot demonstrate the whole condition of America. Not to say that there are so many differences in various places of whole world, so the conditions of amphibians cannot be the same like the Park.(为什么就不能代表？什么不同？) It is entirely possible that the conditions of other places, such as Asia, Europe, Africa, and so forth, are quite opposite to the condition of the park.说理不够充分，有红卫兵的高大空，只有口号缺少实质

Thirdly, the editor's conclusion, which suppose(s) trout is not the reason, is based on such an assumption that the number of trout is not increasing all of the world. In this argument, editor fails to give clear evidence to indicate this assumption. Therefore, the true condition of trout is uncertain all of the world. It is possible that the number of trout is experiencing an increase world wide. Perhaps the number of trout increase in several places while decrease in other places. Extremely, there are few trouts in other places of the world. In such cases, the editor cannot exclude the reason of trout. 这个批得有些偏激了把Finally, even if the trout is not the reason trully, the editor fails to give strong evidence to support the idea that it is pollution to cause the decreasing of amphibian. The relationship is not either-or between trout and pollution all of the world. Therefore, even though the editor have excluded the possibility of trout, he still cannot get the conclusion that pollution is the reason. There may have other factors which can influence the amphibian's decrease, such as the human being, other animals, even the climate, would be the cause. What a pity, the editor fails to consider such cases. So the result of editor is worthy doubt.In sum, because of such flaws as mentioned above, the editor fails to persuade me to believe the conclusion. Therefore, the editor should take more deep survey, and then give more information, in order to make the conclusion credible.

段落分的不是很好，一段一个点，没有逻辑，而且各点也没有展开，分析不够深入
只有口号没有内容。

语言有些错误，不过基本可以表达意思。

我这里打中文部方便，有问题以后交流。

[ 本帖最后由 loud 于 2008-2-28 14:54 编辑 ]

Marvelous_czUID: 2451875

Argument150 同主题写作第二期
中文提纲：一。攻击了调查的可靠性。是否公园的两栖动物数量真的减少了？二。作者错误假设全球的两栖动物都减少了三。作者错误假设全球的trout数量都没有增加。四。即便以上全都成立，但是不能得出全球水和空气污染就是造成两栖动物减少的真正原因
"The decline in the numbers of amphibians worldwide clearly indicates the global pollution of water and air. Two studies of amphibians in YosemiteNational 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: 511         TIME: 00:29:59          DATE: 2008-2-28 11:35:43In this argument, the editor claims that global pullotion of water and air is the reason of the decreasing in the numbers of amphibians worldwide. Also the editor provides the two studies of amphibian in YosemiteNational Park in California, however, in my opinion, I cannot accept the editor's clamation because of such facets as follows.First of all, the creadibility of the two studies in Yosemite National Park of California is worthy of doubt. Does the number of amphibians in park really decreases? Do not ingore that in the second study, the result of decreasing is got by the means of observing. In such condition, the result of the second study may not reflect the true condition. In addition, the editor fails to give us the detailed information on the process of survey, such as the means of survey, whether the surveyer is academic, and so on.
说的是调查可能不准确，本段的错误其实是个小点
可以放到最后才攻击Secondly, I concede that the number of amphibians decreased trully, but this result cannot be extended in the world wide. The clamation of editor's is based on the assumption that the whole number of amphibian is experiencing a decrease. How can a region's condition reflect the whole world? Perhaps it cannot demonstrate the whole condition of America. Not to say that there are so many differences in various places of whole world, so the conditions of amphibians cannot be the same like the Park. It is entirely possible that the conditions of other places, such as Asia, Europe, Africa, and so forth, are quite opposite to the condition of the park.
国家公园的情况不一定能反映世界的情况
感觉你的用语中有很多的都太绝对了，建议用would,may这种语气词比较让人接受。而且句子感觉有些过于简单在这段，可以写的长一些Thirdly, the editor's conclusion, which suppose trout is not the reason, is based on such an assumption that the number of trout is not increasing all of the world. In this argument, editor fails to give clear evidence to indicate this assumption. Therefore, the true condition of trout is uncertain all of the world. It is possible that the number of trout is experiencing an increase world wide. Perhaps the number of trout increase in several places while decrease in other places. Extremely, there are few trouts in other places of the world. In such cases, the editor cannot exclude the reason of trout.
作者没有把TROUT的怀疑排除
到这段我感觉，你是一个点一个点的攻击，让人感觉非常孤立。。。Finally, even if the trout is not the reason trully, the editor fails to give strong evidence to support the idea that it is pollution to cause the decreasing of amphibian. The relationship is not either-or between trout and pollution all of the world. Therefore, even though the editor have excluded the possibility of trout, he still cannot get the conclusion that pollution is the reason. There may have other factors which can influence the amphibian's decrease, such as the human being, other animals, even the climate, would be the cause. What a pity, the editor fails to consider such cases. So the result of editor is worthy doubt.
其实我感觉这段和上段可以联系在一起写：不一定是POLLUTION的原因，可能就是TROUT或者是其他象气候的原因，或许这样会更有逻辑，我感觉~In sum, because of such flaws as mentioned above, the editor fails to persuade me to believe the conclusion. Therefore, the editor should take more deep survey, and then give more information, in order to make the conclusion credible.

你这篇写的相当长啊，A都上500多字了
但我觉得其实有些点可以合并的，因为他们几乎就是一点原因。。
个人感觉~~不然你这篇感觉看起来有点散。。