[Big Fish]3月3日Argument150 by-sunny球

sunny球UID: 2693880

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."



In this argument, the author concludes that the global pollution of water and air should be responsible for the decline in the numbers of the amphibians worldwide. To justify this claim, the arguer provide the evidence that the two studies made in Yosemite National Park show a decrease in both the species and numbers of amphibians, and all this should be blamed on the introduction of trout into the park's waters. However, the arguer also point out that these trout would not contribute to the worldwide decline of amphibians. This argument suffers from several critical fallacies.

First of all, the arguer fails to disprove the assertion that the decline in the numbers of amphibians is in fact due to the introduction of trout despite it could not explain the worldwide trend. The arguer does not provide sufficient evidence to rule out the possibility of trout, such as the water in Yosemite National Park is heavily polluted and so on. What's more, without a comparison about the number of amphibians before and after the introduction of trout, the author can not justifiably draw any conclusion on whether the introduction of trout actually effects.

In addition, even if the introduction of trout is not the real reason, it is unfairly to assume that it is the pollution of water and air, rather than some other reasons, that causes the decline of the amphibians. It is possible, for instance, the water temperature in Yosemite National Park gets higher because of the global warming and the amphibians can not adjust to the new living environment; or the food they depend on living is rare and can not afford them, which obviously leads to the distinction of some species. On the other hand, the arguer haven't provided plenty information about the water conditions and pollution in Yosemite National Park. Without accounting for other alternative explanations as well as lacking strong evidence, the author can not convince me that pollution is the only factor for the decline.

Furthermore, even if the amphibians in Yosemite National Park reduce because of the pollution of water, it does not necessarily lead to the conclusion that the worldwide decline suffers from the same reason, in other words, the argument commits a fallacy of false analogy. According to the totally different environment and water conditions, it is entirely possible that the reasons about the decline differ and would not come into play in different regions around the world. Without considering the differences concerning the location, environment, resources and so on, the assertion that a worldwide decline of amphibians indicates the global pollution is indefensible.

As it stands, the argument for the reasons concerning about the decrease in the number of amphibians worldwide is not well reasoned. To make it logically acceptable, the arguer would have to take into account the possible reasons other than the introduction of trout or the pollution of water. To strength the argument, the arguer would have to provide more information about the water conditions and pollutions in different regions worldwide.

SansouciUID: 2755036

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."



In this argument, the author concludes that the global pollution of water and air should be responsible for the decline in the numbers of the amphibians worldwide. To justify this claim, the arguer provide the evidence that the two studies made in Yosemite National Park show a decrease in both the species and numbers of amphibians, and all this should be blamed on the introduction of trout into the park's waters. However, the arguer also point out that these trout would not contribute to the worldwide decline of amphibians. This argument suffers from several critical fallacies.

First of all, the arguer fails to disprove the assertion that the decline in the numbers of amphibians is in fact due to the introduction of trout despite it could not explain the worldwide trend. The arguer does not provide sufficient evidence to rule out the possibility of trout, such as the water in Yosemite National Park is heavily polluted and so on. What's more, without a comparison about the number of amphibians before and after the introduction of trout, the author can not justifiably draw any conclusion on whether the introduction of trout actually effects.

In addition, even if the introduction of trout is not the real reason, it is unfairly to assume that it is the pollution of water and air, rather than some other reasons, which causes the decline of the amphibians. It is possible, for instance, the water temperature in Yosemite National Park gets higher because of the global warming and the amphibians can not adjust to the new living environment; or the food they depend on living is rare and can not afford them, which obviously leads to the distinction of some species. On the other hand, the arguer haven't provided plenty information about the water conditions and pollution in Yosemite National Park. Without accounting for other alternative explanations as well as lacking strong evidence, the author can not convince me that pollution is the only factor for the decline.
（让步，层次感很好）
Furthermore, even if the amphibians in Yosemite National Park reduce because of the pollution of water, it does not necessarily lead to the conclusion that the worldwide decline suffers from the same reason, in other words, the argument commits a fallacy of false analogy. According to the totally different environment and water conditions, it is entirely possible that the reasons about the decline differ and would not come into play in different regions around the world. Without considering the differences concerning the location, environment, resources and so on, the assertion that a worldwide decline of amphibians indicates the global pollution is indefensible.

As it stands（也是我稀饭用的短语，呵呵）, the argument for the reasons concerning about the decrease in the number of amphibians worldwide is not well reasoned. To make it logically acceptable, the arguer would have to take into account the possible reasons other than the introduction of trout or the pollution of water. To strength the argument, the arguer would have to provide more information about the water conditions and pollutions in different regions worldwide.
文章行文流畅，没有太大的问题，层层让步，逻辑清晰，语言多变。
继续加油啊！！

sunny球UID: 2693880

2# Sansouci
谢谢给我的批改，给了我很大勇气，让被issue深深困扰的我又有了动力！一起加油！