【辉太郎杀G大队】7/16作业by sindytt (Argument150 Issue170)

sindyttUID: 2661721

TOPIC: 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."
WORDS: 489         

In this letter, the author draws a conclusion that the golabl pollution of water and air is blame for the decline in the species of amphibians. To support his conclusion, he cites two studies about amphibians in Yosemite National Park. Also he refute that the decline of amphibians is attributable to the introduction of trout. Moreover, he accordingly gets a general conclusion from Yosemite to the whole world. The argument-appears to be reasonable at first glance-suffers some critical flaws that after close scutiny of evidence that seriously undermine the conclusion and accordingly well-reasoned. The main flaws of the argument will be discussed respectively.

First, the author fails to provide sufficient information about the two studies, which is the basis of the conclusion. We find little sign about the procedure for sampling, thus making it doubtful whether the amphibians constitute a sufficiently large sample to be representative. We also don't be acknowledged that who conducted this study and how the study was carried out. So I have every reason to challege the authority and credibility of the study the author provides.

Even if I accept that the amphhibians in Yosemite National Park decrease in species and the numbers of each species, I can't agree with the author that it is not the trout that causes the decline. As mentioned in the argument, trout are known to eat amphibian eggs. Even though it doesn't explain the worldwide deline, we can't draw the conclusion that it is not the cause in Yosemite National Park. Let alone there is no evidence to eliminate trout's suspects for the worldwide decline.
In addition, even if trouts are not blamed for the decline of amphibians, the author can't convince me that it is the water and air pollution that lead the decline. On one hand, there is no evidence to prove that the water is polluted and the air becomes dirty in Yosemite National Park. On the other hand, other alternatives might account for it. Perhaps more tourists visiting the park reduce amphibians' habitant space. Perhaps the global warming plays an destructive effect on amphibians. Maybe they can't quicklly adapted to the change of weather, which reduces amphibians' livability.

Finaly, even though I concede that pollution causes the decline of amphibians in Yosemite National Park, the author can't generalize the conclusion that water and air pollution casue worldwide decline of amphibians from the very example of a park. Unless the author provides studies in other diverse geographic location, I can't accept the author's assertion about the relation between pollution and worldwide decline of amphibians.

To sum up,  there are several fallacies in this argument which undermine the author's conclusion. To bolster the conclusion, the author should give more details about study and study in other places. To strengthen it, the author should have a thorough and overall investigation about all the possibilities that might cause the decline of species and numbers of each species of amphibians.


TOPIC: ISSUE170 - "The surest indicator of a great nation is not the achievements of its rulers, artists, or scientists, but the general welfare of all its people."
WORDS: 618


I agree with the author insofar that the general welfare serves as an indicator of a great nation. Social welfare promises civilians a future that even if they are tired from work, they can have a financial support for their living and get sufficient medical service as well. Social welfare also including obligation education for nations, so it ensures the equality of the rights that every can receive education no matter the rich or the poor. Compare American where people enjoy a high quality of social welfare with some countries in Africa where most people are living under the threat of famine, we can't deny that America is greater than those countries in most aspects. A great country will make every effort to offer a better social welfare to its citizens, so welfare may reflect the greatness of a country to some extent.

However, I don't think the general welfare the surest indicator of a great nation. Consider the country in the history, the welfare in the pass is bound to be inferior to that in current modern society. Even the richest person-Rockefeller didn't enjoy the welfare as well as ordinary person in current America. But we can't deny the past America was a great country for this reason. It is a sure that the welfare will become better in future. If we take the general welfare as the only measure to judge the greatness of a nation, then there will be no great nation in the world.

In addition, China once experienced a period in history when most of the necessities are free. People work together in the factory and earn the same salary regardless of one's achievements. People eat together in the eatery for free and live in the houses provided by the government for free. Children also go to school for free. But China didn't develop much under this planned economy. The welfare at that time might be better than the welfare today in some fields, but I don't think China was greater at that time. Moreover, as we all know, some countries in Europe are famous for their high quality of welfare such as Norway and Switzerland, but can we simply draw a conclusion that these countries are greater than Britain, America and Germany? Is it a wise choice for all the governments to provide a high quality of general welfare regardless of its own economic and politic condition?

The conclusion the author provides can't give me a satisfactory answer to my questions. So, in my point of view, the indicators of a great nation should also involve the achievements of its politicians-so called rulers, artists, scientists or people from all walks of life. The change in policy liberates people from autocracy, which deprives the basic right of men. The development in science provides people better medical treatment to help us build a good physical health and live a happy life. The advancement in technology let us travel further and more quickly, get to know information from the whole world easily and communicate with people far away from us. The achievements in art enhance the general spiritual civilization of the country, which provides a great enjoyment and entertainment for people. All these accomplishments reflect the greatness of a country in different aspects. When measuring a country, we can't ignore these efforts.

To sum up, the general welfare does indicate the greatness of a nation. But it is not the only way to measure a country. It is unfairly to rule out the achievements of its rulers, artists, or scientists. To have a comprehensive command of a country, we should take a thorough and overall investigation of the achievements in all fields in this country.

lmcdragonflyUID: 2601914

TOPIC: 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."
WORDS: 489         

In this letter, the author draws a conclusion that the golabl (global)pollution of water and air is blame(d) for the decline in the species of amphibians. To support his conclusion, he cites two studies about amphibians in Yosemite National Park. Also he refute(s) that the decline of amphibians is attributable to the introduction of trout. Moreover, he accordingly gets a general conclusion from Yosemite to the whole world. The argument-appears to be reasonable at first glance-suffers some critical flaws that after close scrutiny (scrutiny) of evidence that seriously undermine the conclusion and accordingly well-reasoned. The main flaws of the argument will be discussed respectively.(开头超过100字了，有点长，可以精简一些。)

First, the author fails to provide sufficient information about the two studies, which is the basis of the conclusion. （感觉这句话没完啊。信息不足说明什么）We find little sign about the procedure for sampling, thus making it doubtful whether the amphibians constitute a sufficiently large sample to be representative. We also don't be acknowledged that who conducted this study and how the study was carried out. So I have every reason to challege (challenge) the authority and credibility of the study the author provides.

Even if I accept that the amphibians(amphibians) in Yosemite National Park decrease in species and the numbers of each species, I can't agree with the author that it is not the trout that causes the decline. (这句话显得主观了，应该强调作者的假设是unwarranted unconvincing)As mentioned in the argument, trout are known to eat amphibian eggs. Even though it doesn't explain the worldwide deline(decline), we can't draw the conclusion that it is not the cause in Yosemite National Park. Let alone there is no evidence to eliminate trout's suspects for the worldwide decline.
In addition, even if trouts（trout复数不加s）are not blamed for the decline of amphibians, the author can't convince me that it is the water and air pollution that lead the decline. On one hand, there is no evidence to prove that the water is polluted and the air becomes dirty in Yosemite National Park. On the other hand, other alternatives might account for it. Perhaps more tourists visiting the park reduce amphibians' habitant space. Perhaps the global warming plays an destructive effect on amphibians. Maybe they can't quicklly（qucikly） adapted to the change of weather, which reduces amphibians' livability.

Finaly（Finally）, even though I concede that pollution causes the decline of amphibians in Yosemite National Park, the author can't generalize the conclusion that water and air pollution casue （cause）worldwide decline of amphibians from the very example of a park. Unless the author provides studies in other diverse geographic location, I can't accept the author's assertion about the relation between pollution and worldwide decline of amphibians.

To sum up,  there are several fallacies in this argument which undermine the author's conclusion. To bolster the conclusion, the author should give more details about study and study in other places. To strengthen it, the author should have a thorough and overall investigation about all the possibilities that might cause the decline of species and numbers of each species of amphibians.
评语：逻辑攻击点很到位。感觉开头长了点，把时间花在主体段论证更重要，每段多一句话，或者总结下逻辑错误点如何削弱论证，都会是主体段更丰满。最后注意打字和拼写哦。


TOPIC: ISSUE170 - "The surest indicator of a great nation is not the achievements of its rulers, artists, or scientists, but the general welfare of all its people."
WORDS: 618


I agree with the author insofar that the general welfare serves as an indicator of a great nation. Social welfare promises civilians a future that even if they are tired from work, they can have a financial support for their living and get sufficient medical service as well. Social welfare also including obligation education for nations, so it ensures the equality of the rights that every can receive education no matter the rich or the poor. Compare American where people enjoy a high quality of social welfare with some countries in Africa where most people are living under the threat of famine, we can't deny that America is greater than those countries in most aspects. A great country will make every effort to offer a better social welfare to its citizens, so welfare may reflect the greatness of a country to some extent.（第一段就展开论述吗？也学是我模板思维过重，但最好有个引领真个观点的首段，不然我以为你的观点就是同意题目。）

However, I don't think the general welfare the surest indicator of a great nation. Consider the country in the history, the welfare in the pass is bound to be inferior to that in current modern society. Even the richest person-Rockefeller didn't enjoy the welfare as well as ordinary person in current America. But we can't deny the past America was a great country for this reason. It is a sure that the welfare will become better in future. If we take the general welfare as the only measure to judge the greatness of a nation, then there will be no great nation in the world.（得出这个结论其实欠缺更多的论证，与前文联系感觉有点跳跃。）

In addition, China once experienced a period in history when most of the necessities are free. People work together in the factory and earn the same salary regardless of one's achievements. People eat together in the eatery for free and live in the houses provided by the government for free. Children also go to school for free. But China didn't develop much under this planned economy. The welfare at that time might be better than the welfare today in some fields, but I don't think China was greater at that time. Moreover, as we all know, some countries in Europe are famous for their high quality of welfare such as Norway and Switzerland, but can we simply draw a conclusion that these countries are greater than Britain, America and Germany? Is it a wise choice for all the governments to provide a high quality of general welfare regardless of its own economic and politic condition? （例子单成一段。有例子有分析，但topic sentence呢？）

The conclusion the author provides can't give me a satisfactory answer to my questions. So, in my point of view, the indicators of a great nation should also involve the achievements of its politicians-so called rulers, artists, scientists or people from all walks of life. The change in policy liberates people from autocracy, which deprives the basic right of men. The development in science provides people better medical treatment to help us build a good physical health and live a happy life. The advancement in technology let us travel further and more quickly, get to know information from the whole world easily and communicate with people far away from us. The achievements in art enhance the general spiritual civilization of the country, which provides a great enjoyment and entertainment for people. All these accomplishments reflect the greatness of a country in different aspects. When measuring a country, we can't ignore these efforts.（没有统领全局的首段，感觉就是不停的出论点。即使作者想要有演绎分析的过程，建议在第一段指出问题的复杂，需要讨论，其实更推，一下子把观点亮明，不是讲故事没必要留悬念的，关键是方便阅卷人读懂。）

To sum up, the general welfare does indicate the greatness of a nation. But it is not the only way to measure a country. It is unfairly to rule out the achievements of its rulers, artists, or scientists. To have a comprehensive command of a country, we should take a thorough and overall investigation of the achievements in all fields in this country

评语：整体不错，就是提醒一点的是文章的基本结构还是不要拿来创新了