<Big Fish> Argument48 by Greeky

greekyUID: 2605662

45The 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."

Combining a report from the local hunters that the deer populations are declining and the trend that global warming has caused the sea ice to melt,the arguer concluded that the decline in arctic deer populations is a response to deer being unable to follow their age-old migration patterns across the frozen sea. However, from my personal perspective,the argument suffers from some logical flaws.

Firstly,it is unwarranted to draw a conclusion that the arctic deers are really decreasing just according to the hunters` report. It is entirely possible that the conclusion drawed by the hunters is completely false. There are many possible explanations for this condition,for instance,the hunters only noticed that the number of the deers living around their village decreased,however, maybe it was because the deers just migrated to another region. Or perhaps the hunters just wanted to attain more attention from the public to boost the development of their own economic thus they could lead a more comfortable life. Without ruling out such possibilities,it is unacceptable to accept the hunters` report.

Secondly,even though the amount of the deer is really decreasing,it may not result from the trend of the global warming. Yet,it is widely accepted that global warming is damaging our climate and the winter of the sea region is getting warmer and warmer,the arguer fails to provide detailed information about the region reported to illustrate that the area is also affected by the global warming. It is totally possible that this region has successfully survived from the devastating damage of the global warming.

Finally,even though the area also get negative impact of the global warming,in other words, the ice in the winter of the region never exists,the arguer cannot conclude that it is the thawing of the ice that cause the decreasing of deer. The evidence in the argument cannot support the above claim. It is too unjustifiable to conclude that the thawing of the ice should be responsible for the fact that there are fewer deer there now. Perhaps it is the warmer climate in itself prevent the deer from living there any longer.

In sum,the argument is not logically acceptable unless the arguer rule out the possible explanation and others discussed above.

greekyUID: 2605662

25min 366words

dgxy08UID: 2599486

Combining a report from the local hunters that the deer populations are declining and the trend that global warming has caused the sea ice to melt, the arguer concluded that the decline in arctic deer populations is a response to deer being unable to follow their age-old migration patterns across the frozen sea. However, from my personal perspective, his argument suffers from some logical flaws.

Firstly, it is unwarranted to draw a conclusion that the arctic deer are really decreasing just according to the hunters` report. It is entirely possible that the conclusion drawn by the hunters is completely false. There are many possible explanations for this condition, for instance, the hunters only noticed that the number of the deer living around their village decreased; however, maybe it was because the deer just migrated to another region. Or perhaps the hunters just wanted to attain more attention from the public to boost the development of their own economic thus they could lead a more comfortable life. Without ruling out such possibilities, it is unacceptable to accept the hunters` report.

Secondly, even though the amount of the deer is really decreasing, it may not result from the trend of the global warming. Yet, it is widely accepted that global warming is damaging our climate and the winter of the sea region is getting warmer and warmer. In addition, the arguer fails to provide detailed information about the region reported to illustrate that the area is also affected by the global warming. It is totally possible that this region has successfully survived from the devastating damage of the global warming.

Finally, even though the area also get negative impact of the global warming, in other words, the ice in the winter of the region never exists, the arguer cannot conclude that it is the thawing of the ice that cause the decreasing of deer. The evidence in the argument cannot support the above claim. It is too unjustifiable to conclude that the thawing of the ice should be responsible for the fact that there are fewer deer there now. Perhaps it is the warmer climate in itself prevents the deer from living there any longer.

In sum, the argument is not logically acceptable unless the arguer rule out the possible explanation and others discussed above.

逻辑清晰，拼写有些错误，结尾可以适当加长点。