Argument150

CynthiaMomoLeeUID: 2587828

In this argument, the editor claims that it is the global pollution of water and air that results in the decline in the numbers of amphibians worldwide.
By making a comparison of seven species of amphibians, which were abundant numbers of each species in 1915, in Yosemite National Park in California , with only four species of amphibians, whose numbers were reduced in 1992 in the same park, the author justify the conclusion. On the other hand, the author mentioning that the introduction of trout cannot be the real fact for the Yosemite decline because it does not explain the worldwide declining validates the above conclusion again. This argument is based on problematic reasoning and it should therefore be rejected.

In the first place, the two surveys in this letter are not representative because the information is just from the park in the California. Hence, we cannot know the more meaningful and specific information from other countries or cities in the world. Additionally, only two years' statistic is unpersuasive. An inability to master adequate knowledge about the numbers of species reported in the other years keeps us from realizing the real tendency whether the numbers have been reduced or enhanced. We can possibly suspect the shortage of species only in 1992. Without providing any proof that the falling number has happened, there is no support for the two surveys.

Secondly, even assuming that the survey is well-reasoned, we still cannot state that the primary and clear reason leading to the declining in the numbers of amphibians is the global pollution of water and air. Obviously, the speaker is failing to consider other possible alternatives to the phenomenon. Such alternatives may include the fact that the animals may have not adapted the change of the climate and the temperature, which are different from ever before, or that the food needed by the amphibians has not been ample in the half of century. So ignoring the other possibility to the same decrease, the letter seems not to be logical.

Finally, the author make a statement that even though the decline in Yosemite Park was the faulty of the coming of a fish called trout which are known to eat amphibian eggs, it cannot become the real and final cause, due to the trout's existence not spreading any park in the world. But the author fails to substantiate whether the other parks have not bring the trout. It is entirely possible that as continuously giving birth to more and more generation, the trout could swim anywhere, which bring about the result of the decline in amphibian's number.

To sum up, in order to convince us that the pollution of water and air is the real damager of becoming short in the number of amphibian, the author should real more meaningful survey and consider or rule out other reasons affecting the final result. What's more，more exploration about the influence of the trout should be done.

topranUID: 2310216

1# CynthiaMomoLee

In this argument, the editor claims that it is the global pollution of water and air that results in the decline in the numbers of amphibians worldwide. By making a comparison of seven species of amphibians, which were abundant numbers of each species in 1915, in Yosemite National Park in California , with only four species of amphibians, whose numbers were reduced in 1992 in the same park, the author justify the conclusion. On the other hand, the author mentioning that the introduction of trout cannot be the real fact for the Yosemite decline because it does not explain the worldwide declining validates the above conclusion again. This argument is based on problematic reasoning and it should therefore be rejected. good begining~ In the first place, the two surveys in this letter are not representative because the information is just from the park in the California. Hence, we cannot know the more meaningful and specific information from other countries or cities in the world. Additionally, only two years' statistic is unpersuasive. An inability to master adequate knowledge about the numbers of species reported in the other years keeps us from realizing the real tendency whether the numbers have been reduced or enhanced. We can possibly suspect the shortage of species only in 1992. Without providing any proof that the falling number has happened, there is no support for the two surveys. Secondly, even assuming that the survey is well-reasoned, we still cannot state that the primary and clear reason leading to the declining in the numbers of amphibians is the global pollution of water and air. Obviously, the speaker is failing to consider other possible alternatives to the phenomenon. Such alternatives may include the fact that the animals may have not adapted the change of the climate and the temperature, which are different from ever before, or that the food needed by the amphibians has not been ample in the half of century. So ignoring the other possibility to the same decrease, the letter seems not to be logical. Finally, the author make a statement that even though the decline in Yosemite Park was the faulty of the coming of a fish called trout which are known to eat amphibian eggs, it cannot become the real and final cause, due to the trout's existence not spreading any park in the world. But the author fails to substantiate whether the other parks have not bring the trout. It is entirely possible that as continuously giving birth to more and more generation, the trout could swim anywhere, which bring about the result of the decline in amphibian's number. To sum up, in order to convince us that the pollution of water and air is the real damager of becoming short in the number of amphibian, the author should real more meaningful survey and consider or rule out other reasons affecting the final result. What's more，more exploration about the influence of the trout should be done.

Good work
If this work has been done in limited time ,I believe you will get high score in the test