argument150 寄托4人组 8.29

meautoUID: 2116250

Issue150 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.'
------正文------
In this argument, the editor concludes that the decline in the numbers of amphibians worldwide is attributable to the global pollution of water and air. However, a close scrutiny of two studied cited by the editor as evidence reveals they are of little support to the conclusion.

To begin with, whether two studies carried in the Yosemite National Park (UNP) are conducted under the same method is open to question. Perhaps the study in 1915 lasted for a whole year, and was conducted by a group of biological or ecological experts, resulting in the abundant numbers of amphibian species found. Contrarily, perhaps the study in 1992 was performed by several inexperienced university students, and the project might be done within just one week. If so, the limited time spent on the second study and the inexperience of its conductors may explain the reduced species and respective populations of amphibians. Without ruling out these possibilities, the editor cannot convince me that the numbers of amphibians are truly declining.

Even granted the reliability of the two studies, the arguer unfairly dismisses the introduction of trout into the park's waters to be the cause of amphibians' declining in numbers. After all, as the editor says, trout are known to eat amphibian eggs. Unless the speaker offers detailed information to convince us that the reducing numbers of amphibian have not been the result of trout's eating amphibian eggs in YNP, the editor can not naively rule out this possible causal-and-effect relationship between the two.

Furthering assuming the introduction of trout has nothing to do with the declining numbers of amphibians in YNP, the arguer groundlessly assumes that the decline should be blamed on the water and air pollutions, and this phenomenon indicate a worldwide trend. For one thing, a myriad of factors aside from water and air pollutions might result in the reducing numbers of amphibians in YNP, such as the introduction of species other than trout that may threat the existence of amphibians. Or the lack of food may gradually lessen the numbers of amphibians in seven years. Even granted that water and air pollution is attributable to the decease, studies restricted to a specific place, a national park in California, may far from cogent to draw any insightful conclusion for a global trend.

To sum up, more detailed information is needed to make this article more convincing。

bridgewalkerUID: 208595

zhan!

bridgewalkerUID: 208595

argument150 寄托4人组 8.29

Issue150 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.'
------正文------
In this argument, the editor concludes that the decline in the numbers of amphibians worldwide is attributable to the global pollution of water and air. However, a close scrutiny of two studied cited by the editor as evidence reveals they are of little support to the conclusion.

To begin with, whether two studies carried in the Yosemite National Park (UNP) are conducted under the same method is open to question. Perhaps the study in 1915 lasted for a whole year, and was conducted by a group of biological or ecological experts, resulting in the abundant numbers of amphibian species found. Contrarily, perhaps the study in 1992 was performed by several inexperienced university students, and the project might be done within just one week. If so, the limited time spent on the second study and the inexperience of its conductors may explain the reduced species and respective populations of amphibians. Without ruling out these possibilities, the editor cannot convince me that the numbers of amphibians are truly declining.

Even granted the reliability of the two studies, the arguer unfairly dismisses the introduction of trout into the park's waters to be the cause of amphibians' declining in numbers. After all, as the editor says, trout are known to eat amphibian eggs. Unless the speaker offers detailed information to convince us that the reducing numbers of amphibian have not been the result of trout's eating amphibian eggs in YNP, the editor can not naively rule out this possible causal-and-effect relationship between the two.

Furthering assuming the introduction of trout has nothing to do with the declining numbers of amphibians in YNP, the arguer groundlessly assumes that the decline should be blamed on the water and air pollutions, and this phenomenon indicate a worldwide trend. For one thing, a myriad of factors aside from water and air pollutions might result in the reducing numbers of amphibians in YNP, such as the introduction of species other than trout that may threat the existence of amphibians. Or the lack of food may gradually lessen the numbers of amphibians in seven years(人类的捕杀也算吧？). Even granted that water and air pollution is attributable to the decrease, studies restricted to a specific place, a national park in California, may far from cogent to draw any insightful conclusion for a global trend.

从题目最后一句来看，arguer认为amphibian 的global decline的原因又且只有一个。这可以驳斥。

To sum up, more detailed information is needed to make this article more convincing。

bridgewalkerUID: 208595

1.数量没有下降，两个Studies有问题。
2.即使下降，也不能排除是Trout造成的。
3.即使不是Trout造成的，也不能说一定是polllution造成的。
4.即使是pollution也不能代表全球趋势。

meautoUID: 2116250

人家说是NATIONAL PARK,我觉得说人类捕杀可能有点不太合适ING
攻击第2点,即分析TROUT的原因时,主要是攻击
But the introduction of trout cannot be the real reason for the Yosemite decline because it does not explain the worldwide decline
我觉得这一点攻击起来很棘手,至少还牵扯到别的方面的错误,就避开了
你有没啥好法子

bridgewalkerUID: 208595

攻击第2点,即分析TROUT的原因时,主要是攻击
But the introduction of trout cannot be the real reason for the Yosemite decline because it does not explain the worldwide decline
我觉得这一点攻击起来很棘手,至少还牵扯到别的方面的错误,就避开了
你有没啥好法子

speaker用“trout不能解释worldwide decline”来作为trout不是YNP decline的原因。明显不对啊！

也就是说YNP decline的原因一定是跟全球相同！这就可以攻击了！

meautoUID: 2116250

Originally posted by bridgewalker at 2005-8-30 11:44


speaker用“trout不能解释worldwide decline”来作为trout不是YNP decline的原因。明显不对啊！

也就是说YNP decline的原因一定是跟全球相同！这就可以攻击了！

呵呵,我还真是猪头啊:$

嘶喊的牧歌UID: 197463

我仍然认为马甲的结尾有点仓促之感。
参照范文来写会保险一些吧？
你们认为呢。

meautoUID: 2116250

恩,我在另外个帖子里说了这个问题..........

https://bbs.gter.net/viewthre ... &extra=page%3D1

[ Last edited by meauto on 2005-8-31 at 00:04 ]

嘶喊的牧歌UID: 197463

Originally posted by meauto at 2005-8-30 23:59
恩,我在另外个帖子里说了这个问题..........

https://bbs.gter.net/viewthre ... &extra=page%3D1

reply.