ARGUMENT150 by zephyrqq

zephyrqqUID: 2260290

ARGUMENT150 - 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."
字数：272    545      用时：00:35:00    加30 分钟     日期：2008-2-28 15:01:38

唉，这样的稳定而缓慢的速度很无奈。。

提纲
1.公园的两栖动物可能没有减少，观测不准确（如果考试这一段舍弃）
2.即使减少了，不能排除是trout造成的
3.即使不是trout，也不一定是污染（可能有别的原因，而且没有水污染空气污染的证据）
4.不能仅仅一个公园的情况做出一个全球性的结论 世界范围内下降和公园下降的原因不一定相同

Before accepting the author's conclusion that the reduction in the numbers of amphibians worldwide clearly indicated the worldwide air and water pollution, we should make a reflection on the reasoning process of this argument. Actually, the author assume that what is true in a single place could necessarily be accordance with the fact in worldwide, hence, his conclusion is unconvincing.

To begin with, the studies mentioned in this argument lend less support to the presumption that the decline of amphibians have already happened in Yosemite National Park. Actually, what is observed is not certainly consistent with the truth. It is possible that the observer in 1922 have not be well trained and therefore lack of specific knowledge, scientific skills and sophisticated equipment for observation. Under this circumstance, he or she might miss some amphibians which are not so easy be found, and then make an inaccurate observation. This scenario, if true, would sharply weaken the author's claim that the amphibians in this park is declined.

Furthermore, even if we concede the existence of the decline in the park, the author also fails to exclude the possibility that the decrease is caused by the introduction of trout into the parks water. Since trout are known to feed on amphibian eggs, it quite likely contribute to the decrease of amphibians. Lacking of evidence showing that the existence of trout have nothing to do with the reduction of amphibian and it is other reasons that caused it,  we could not rule out the chance that trout threaten the survival of amphibians in this park.

In addition, even if the trout is not responsible for the decline, the author commits a either-or fallacy and presume that the decrease, if not caused by trout, is certainly attribute to pollution. However, this assumption does not hold water. First, there are several other possible explanations for the decline, such as lack of food due to the irresponsible management of the park, some natural enemies besides trout, or the park transport some of its amphibians to other parks. Any of these or other alternative explanations, if true, could throw over the blame on pollution. Secondly, the author mentioned no evidence to inform us that the water and air in this area is polluted. Thus, we have sound reason to doubt whether the implicated pollution is existent or not.

Finally, nowhere is more ridiculous than draw a worldwide conclusion merely based on the situation of a single park. It is unreasonable to assume that the reason of the global decline of amphibians  must be the same with that of the decline in the park. Even if the decline in this park is due to pollution, the author could not take it for granted that pollution is the reason for a global decline. It is at least possible that some amphibian species could not adapt to the ever-changing natural environment and changing climate endanger the species which they lived on, therefore they could not survive any more. If so, this might be the inevitable result following the law of nature not the result of pollution. Thus, the conclusion that “the decline in the numbers of amphibians worldwide clearly indicates the global pollution of water and air” is unreasonable.

For all these reasons, this argument is unsubstantial as it stands. To better support it. the author should make sure that the amphibians in the park is indeed decreased, and show evidence that the only reason for that decline is pollution. Additionally, some other information show the global decline of amphibians is actually caused by pollution instead of other factors is also necessary.

[ 本帖最后由 zephyrqq 于 2008-3-6 19:11 编辑 ]

wxtxxmUID: 2339833

Before accepting the author's conclusion that the reduction in the numbers of amphibians worldwide clearly indicated the worldwide air and water pollution因果关系似乎反了哦~, we should make a reflection on the reasoning process of this argument. Actually, the author assume that what is true in a single place could necessarily be accordance with the fact in worldwide, hence, his conclusion is unconvincing.

To begin with, the studies mentioned in this argument lend less support to the presumption that the decline of amphibians have already happened in Yosemite National Park. Actually, what is observed is not certainly consistent with the truth. It is possible that the observer in 1922 have not be well trained and therefore lack of specific knowledge, scientific skills and sophisticated equipment for observation. Under this circumstance, he or she might miss some amphibians which are not so easy be found, and then make an inaccurate observation. This scenario, if true, would sharply weaken the author's claim that the amphibians in this park is declined.批驳了调查的可靠性~不错~

Furthermore, even if we concede the existence of the decline in the park, the author also fails to exclude the possibility that the decrease is caused by the introduction of trout into the parks water. Since trout are known to feed on amphibian eggs, it quite likely contribute to the decrease of amphibians本句似乎语法于点问题~. Lacking of evidence showing that the existence of trout have nothing to do with the reduction of amphibian,,  we could not ruling out the chance that trout threaten the survival of amphibians in this park.感觉对于trout不是造成两栖动物数量减少的原因，批驳的不是很深入~

In addition, even if the trout is not responsible for the decline, the author commits a either-or fallacy and presume that the decrease, if not caused by trout, is certainly attribute to pollution. However, this assumption does not hold water. First, there are several other possible explanations for the decline, such as lack of food due to the irresponsible management of the park, some natural enemies besides trout, or the park transport some of its amphibians to other parks. Any of these or other alternative explanations, if true, could throw over the blame on pollution. Secondly, the author mentioned no evidence to inform us that the water and air in this area is polluted. Thus, we have sound reason to doubt whether the implicated pollution is existent or not.本段推理层层递进，很深入

Finally, nowhere is more ridiculous than draw a worldwide conclusion merely based on the situation of a single park. It is unreasonable to assume that the reason of the global decline of amphibians  must be the same with that of the decline in the park. Even if the decline in this park is due to pollution, the author could not take it for granted that pollution is the reason for a global decline. It is at least possible that some amphibian species could not adapt to the ever-changing natural environment and changing climate endanger the species which they lived on, therefore they could not survive any more. If so, this might be the inevitable result following the law of nature not the result of pollution. Thus, the conclusion that “the decline in the numbers of amphibians worldwide clearly indicates the global pollution of water and air” is unreasonable.批驳从一个公园推广至全球这个错误~也不错~

For all these reasons, this argument is unsubstantial as it stands. To better support it. the author should make sure that the amphibians in the park is indeed decreased, and show evidence that the only reason for that decline is pollution. Additionally, some other information show the global decline of amphibians is actually caused by pollution instead of other factors is also necessary.

整个来看，本篇文章写的还是很不错的~除了个别语法小错误，呵呵~

zephyrqqUID: 2260290

the reduction in the numbers of amphibians worldwide clearly indicated the worldwide air and water pollution因果关系似乎反了哦~,
没有反吧？就是原文第一句的改写啊~
谢谢修改， 你太客气了，要大刀阔斧地改啊，哈哈