还有三天就考了，好紧张，帮忙看一下北极鹿这篇吧！！

andyvictorUID: 2430551

【真的好紧张，有人能帮忙看看吗?不胜感激！】
Argument145:
TOPIC: ARGUMENT45 - The 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."
WORDS: 492          TIME: 00:31:20          DATE: 2010/3/2 11:19:00
The arger claims that the decline in arctic deer population stems from the their inability to follow the age-old migration patterns by citing several pieces of evidence. Yet, close scrutiny will reveal the argument's logical flaws that render it unconvincing.
First of all, are the reports from local hunters believable enough? After all, to conclude the change in number of a species of animal requires scientific research and long-term observation. However, common sense informs us that hunters neither have enough training on how to estimate the number of deer, nor are equipped with certain tools for observation. Hence it is entirely possible that the reports are based on only several hunting activities in which the hunters caught fewer arctic deer. Perhaps the hunters were not lucky enough; or perhaps new hunters took the responsibility of finding preys and hence the lack of experience contributed to their failure. For that matter, the reports would prove nothing about the number of arctic deer.
Secondly, even granted that the decline of arctic deer is a truth, there is no evidence that the global warming affects the local area. It is entirely possible that the arctic region is naturally isolated from outside world; therefore the global warming only imposes negligible impact on the area. If this is the case, the decline would have nothing to do with global warming, let alone the disturbance of the migration patterns of deer. Moreover, even if the local temperature has risen along with the global warming trend, yet there is lack of data on how much the temperature has increaesed. Is the temperature high enough that the ice between islands has melted? If the temperature only climbs a little, say 0.01 degree, there would be no influence on the ice and the migration patterns would not be altered.
Finally, conceding that the global warming has significantly affected the local area and the ice between islands has already melted, the argument still cannot convince me. For the first reason, there is no evidence to show that deer will die because of this. Perhaps there are enough plants on the islands they habitate so that they can safely rely on the food to survive. For that matter, no deer would die of hunger and the causal relationship claimed by the arguer would be untenable. For the second reason, the arguer fails to see other possible factors that might as well lead to the decline. Such factors might include over-hunting, environmental pollution and devastation. For example, if the local hunters and residents killed too many deer, or broke the habitat the deer relied on to survive, the decline would not be surprising. Without considering and ruling out these factors, the arguer cannot hastily draw the final conclusion.
In sum, the argument lacks sufficient data and well-rounded considerations as discussed above. Far more detailed and scientific studies and scrutiny should be exerted to examine the real reason for the decreased number of arctic deer.

hurongchildUID: 2595535

看完了楼主写的文章，整体的感觉是不错的，大体方向没有问题，但是有几个问题想指出来，楼主批判地接受或者否定啊~
1、每一段开头最好首先一针见血的指出作者的逻辑错误。比如第一段，开头不是说“他们的报告可信吗”，而是说“argument不能较好地说明鹿的数量真的下降了·····”这样你整段文字更focus你的每段中心。
2、第一段说Hunter的报告不可信的原因感觉理由很新颖，说到了Hunter不能科学的测量，但是这些都是一种可能，不是一定的，最好说 it is likely什么什么···
3第二点，你的整段先说全球变暖不一定这里也变暖，理由是他们和外界隔绝，这个要多想想，毕竟鹿生活在与外界隔绝的环境还是很少见的···更常见的理由是因为别的地方变暖了但是这个地方不一定能变暖。写下来你说即使这里变暖了，但是作者没有告诉我们变暖了多少，我建议这句话写成“即使这里变暖了，也不一定会造成鹿数量减少”，这样你的意图更加明显，毕竟仅仅说没告诉我们上升多少没有直接和你的分论点联系起来，需要人去推测，你应该尽量把你的推测说明白，并且要先说出来，而不是到了段末再说。最后，你这两段实际围绕的中心是“即使鹿的数量真的减少了，这也不一定是因为全球变暖”，这和你写的主题句“即使减少了，也不一定说明全球变暖影响了这个区域”之间是有差别的，而这个差别要慢慢体会。
3、第三段没发现有什么问题···
总之，不知道我的建议make sense不，但我觉得这些问题都很快就可以解决~