argument150 第一篇习作，请大家猛拍，谢谢哦

violUID??206104

150 The following is a letter to the editor of an environmental magazine.

'The decline in the number 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 number 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.'

------正文------

The issue of deteriorating environment is apparently what the author of the letter concerns about. He writes to the magazine to bring forward his personal opinion that the global pollution of air and water has already caused  a decrease in the number of amphibians throughout the world. As a support for his conclusion, there are two studies, respectively carried out in 1915 and 1992, on the survival situation of amphibians in YN park cited in the letter,  also followed by a verdict in which a currently accepted reason for the reduction of amphibians population is denied. Close scrutiny into this case,  however, reveals that the author draws a conclusion that have outgrown the evidences he raises, and as well, his argument suffers from several critical fallacies.

The foremost failure in the author’s argument is due to his rash attempt, in which only basing on a few studies at a specific place dose he make up a final conclusion that is expected to cover as far as the Earth. The problem does not lie in the quantity of such studies, but the very single site where the studies were carried out. If only the author might have looked at the species of amphibians and the ecosystem, as well as the geographical environment and the activities of local resident, he would realize how considerably all these conditions vary with changes either from one continent to another, or from a temperate swamp to a tropical rainforest, or, often enough, from an upper area to a lower one of the same river. On our globe, in fact, there is not such a particular place which can serve as a model covering all for scientific research. However, the author misses all these crucial factors and simply pushes back his consequence from Yosemite Park to the World. Of course, accordingly, he impossibly provides any convinced link between them.

Another query against is derived from the nature of these two studies, which the author raises in the letter so as to back up his verdict. However, such studies should not go as far towards the argument as he have expected. Because in respect of these two studies, the author fails to advise us how long they were going on, or under what processes they were carried out, nor is he able to define the accuracy of observation or the computing technique in censuses. Why we have to focus on such kind of basic information about the studies?  Serve a most typical example. Suppose the study in 1992 merely served for an outgoing for a group of students who were very likely to be short of instruments, experience and skill, and suppose that they selected a time of some weeks within their winter vocation when almost each of the amphibian animals in the Yosemite Park either had naturally died or had gone into winter sleep; in violent contrast with that, the previous study was carried out by, say, a well equipped scientific group, consisting of zoologists and researchers with a professional system of research and specific subject. Needless to say, there should be an enormous variance between the results of these two studies. Out of hypothetic as this case is, it dose pinpoint a critical omission about the author’s statement – that a comparable premise would be very indispensable before any conclusion.

Finally, it is necessary to unfold a serious fallacy contained in the author’s idea. There has been a well agreed theory that the decline of amphibians in the Yosemite Park is attributed to an introduction of trout, a sort of fish which feed on amphibians’ eggs. The author is fairly aware of that, but he is of a view far from it. At any rate, the author ought to come up with direct and effective proof, whether to dismissing the old theory, or to establish his own theory. But he did not, instead of that, he merely relies on a very specious basis that the introduction of trout cannot explain the worldwide decrease of the population of amphibian. Can a matter exert its influence upon its surrounding only when it has been proved to be a cause to a global issue? Almost without a deliberation, one can tell the absurdity of this question that breach against general principles. Nevertheless, the author do think in such a way, likely initiated with an assumption that since the amphibian abnormally receding out of their natural residence is a global phenomena, there must be another global factor that has determined the former. Such an idea could be right in some degree, however, it has expended too far without giving any consideration to individual effects in a local case.

Every time when confronted with an issue of the world nature, people always have an inclination to blame it on the matter of worldwide pollution. But often enough, such a general view might turn into being a cliché in vain, which helps little to solve those issues, like this case. To reverse such a hard situation, the author need turn to more scientific researches conducted over a far wider range on the Earth, rather than narrowly focus on a given place; and he have to look through all those studies, rather than put them forward without any knowledge; and absolutely, he should always construct his theory in a way that is subject to fundamental logic, rather than base on a fallacious conception.

davidjackyUID??135962

请大家结队改作文，主动一些，如果在你修改别人作文后仍未见别人回复，请和我联系

http://edu.gter.net/bbs/viewthre ... &extra=page%3D3

http://edu.gter.net/bbs/viewthre ... &extra=page%3D5

http://edu.gter.net/bbs/viewthre ... &extra=page%3D1

http://edu.gter.net/bbs/viewthre ... &extra=page%3D2

http://edu.gter.net/bbs/viewthre ... &extra=page%3D2

http://edu.gter.net/bbs/viewthre ... &extra=page%3D3

staralwaysUID??193479

The issue of deteriorating environment is apparently what the author of the letter concerns about. [带有背景陈述意味的开头。] He writes to the magazine to bring forward his personal opinion that the global pollution of air and water has already caused a decrease in the number of amphibians throughout the world. As a support for his conclusion, there are two studies, respectively carried out in 1915 and 1992, on the survival situation of amphibians in YN park [平时分析和练习时可以使用缩写，但是正式考试时不要缩写，可以使用paste和copy的功能。] cited in the letter, also followed by a verdict in which a currently accepted reason for the reduction of amphibians population is denied. Close scrutiny into this case, however, reveals that the author draws a conclusion that have [has] outgrown the evidences he raises, and as well, his argument suffers from several critical fallacies. [首句的背景式陈述以及结尾句给人有点新意的感觉，模板的痕迹较少，不错。但是有一个问题就是，对于题干的复述太长了，restate对于最后得分的作用是很小的。可以考虑简化一下。]

The foremost failure in the author’s argument is due to his rash attempt, in which only basing on a few studies at a specific place dose he make up a final conclusion that is expected to cover [the overall situation] as far as [that of] the Earth. The problem does not lie in the quantity of such studies, but the very single site where the studies were carried out. If only the author might have looked at the species of amphibians and the ecosystem, as well as the geographical environment and the activities of local resident, he would realize how considerably all these conditions vary with changes either from one continent to another, or from a temperate swamp to a tropical rainforest, or, often enough, from an upper area to a lower one of the same river. [这一小段对于different conditions的陈述很细致到位。] On our globe, in fact, there is not such a particular place which can serve as a model covering all for scientific research. However, the author misses all these crucial factors and simply pushes back his consequence from Yosemite Park to the World. Of course, accordingly, he impossibly provides any convinced link between them.

Another query against is derived from the nature of these two studies, which the author raises in the letter so as to back up his verdict. However, such studies should not go as far towards the argument as he have expected. Because in respect of these two studies, the author fails to advise us how long they were going on, or under what processes they were carried out, nor is he able to define the accuracy of observation or the computing technique in censuses. Why we have to focus on such kind of basic information about the studies? Serve a most typical example. Suppose the study in 1992 merely served for an outgoing for a group of students who were very likely to be short of instruments, experience and skill, and suppose that they selected a time of some weeks within their winter vocation when almost each of the amphibian animals in the Yosemite Park either had naturally died or had gone into winter sleep; in violent contrast with that, the previous study was carried out by, say, a well equipped scientific group, consisting of zoologists and researchers with a professional system of research and specific subject. [这段的陈述也较有说服力。] Needless to say, there should be an enormous variance [enormous variances] between the results of these two studies. Out of hypothetic as this case is, it dose pinpoint a critical omission about the author’s statement – that a comparable premise would be very indispensable before any conclusion.

Finally, it is necessary to unfold a serious fallacy contained in the author’s idea. There has been a well agreed theory that the decline of amphibians in the Yosemite Park is attributed to an introduction of trout, a sort of fish which feed on amphibians’ eggs. The author is fairly aware of that, but he is of a view far from it. At any rate, the author ought to come up with direct and effective proof, whether to dismissing the old theory, or to establish his own theory. But he did not, instead of that, he merely relies on a very specious basis that the introduction of trout cannot explain the worldwide decrease of the population of amphibian. Can a matter exert its influence upon its surrounding only when it has been proved to be a cause to a global issue? Almost without a deliberation, one can tell the absurdity of this question that breach against general principles. Nevertheless, the author do think in such a way, likely initiated with an assumption that since the amphibian abnormally receding out of their natural residence is a global phenomena, there must be another global factor that has determined the former. Such an idea could be right in some degree, however, it has expended too far without giving any consideration to individual effects in a local case.

Every time when confronted with an issue of the world nature, people always have an inclination to blame it on the matter of worldwide pollution. But often enough, such a general view might turn into being a cliché in vain, which helps little to solve those issues, like this case. To reverse such a hard situation, the author need turn to more scientific researches conducted over a far wider range on the Earth, rather than narrowly focus on a given place; and he have to look through all those studies, rather than put them forward without any knowledge; and absolutely, he should always construct his theory in a way that is subject to fundamental logic, rather than base on a fallacious conception. [和平常所见的argument感觉很不一样，有一种issue的感觉。语言很流畅，分析得也比较到位。]

Lyon_TonyUID??178961

搂主这篇文章写了多久？

staralwaysUID??193479

我也觉得考试时真这么写肯定来不及，但是感觉有点像“issue型”的argument，和平常看到的基于模板的感觉很不一样呢。下次有空去找找看哪里有讨论这方面的话题。

mkb57288UID??2105771

顶，好东西