[TSUBASA] 第二次作业 argument45 by cnwzly

cnwzlyUID：2634423

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."

Merely based on unfounded assumption and dubious evidence, the author advocates the conclusion that the decrease of the arctic deer population is due to recent global warming trends. To justify this assertion, the author provides the evidence that the habitat of the deer is the migration across the frozen sea during the winter. In addition, she cites the reported from local hunters who witness the reduction of arctic deer. Although, the argument seems to be convincible at first thought, it has several critical flaws that undermine the line of reasoning.

To begin with, it is a fallacy to equate reduction of arctic deer with the rise of global temperature. Without analyzing the specifics which are supported the author's conclusion, declining trends in arctic deer is still suspicious and unclear. Firstly, the report about the reduction provided by local hunters is doubtful, since the remains of the deer which live on a large inland and have not been found by the hunters, might be even larger than before. Moreover, with the personal aims, the local hunters might supply feigned information which is beneficial to them, such as subsidy the government offers in order to sustain their life. Without ruling out such possibilities, the author cannot justifiably conclude that the number of the deer is decreasing.

Even assuming the existence of the reduction of the deer, the mere fact that the decrease of the deer which was reported by local hunters is insufficient evidence that their trouble in migrating is primary contribution. While a causal correlation relies on a strong evidence of causality, in itself it is enough. The author must also account for all other possible factors leading to phenomena. It is very likely that the poaching and polluting lead to the result. It is the common sense that most of the extinction of the species are attributed by human behaviors, which have changed our society as far as influenced the nature. Furthermore, the factor of pollution is more serious in harm to animal. Lacking evidence that it is rising of temperature that causes the decrease, the author cannot hastily draw a conclusion.

Finally, the author observes a correlation between the difficulty of migration and the global warming trends, then concludes that the former is the cause of the latter. However, the author fails to rule out other possible explanation for this obstacle of migration. The change of local terrain which is result of earthquake is very possible for disturbing the migration, or even harmful to deer's existence.


In conclusion, though the agreement seems plausible, in fact, the recommendation relies on certain assumption that renders it unconvincing as it stands. Not only does it leave out such key issues, but also cites in the analysis the evidence, which does not lend strong support to what author claims. To bolster the conclusion, the author has to provide clearer statistical evidence about reduction of the population of arctic deer. To better evaluate the recommendation, I would like to know more details to demonstrate whether the temperature is certainly rising in the area where the deer habit.

wildrose800331UID：2602131

Merely based on unfounded assumption and dubious evidence, the author advocates the conclusion that the decrease of the arctic deer population is due to recent global warming trends. To justify this assertion, the author provides the evidence that the habitat of the deer is the migration across the frozen sea during the winter. In addition, she cites the reported from local hunters who witness the reduction of arctic deer. Although, the argument seems to be convincible at first thought, it has several critical flaws that undermine the line of reasoning. 开头直接　不错

To begin with, it is a fallacy to equate reduction of arctic deer with the rise of global temperature. Without analyzing the specifics which are supported（support) the author's conclusion, declining trends in arctic deer is still suspicious and unclear. Firstly, the report about the reduction provided by local hunters is doubtful, since the remains of the deer which live on a large inland and have not been found by the hunters, might be even larger than before合理的解释呢？. Moreover, with the personal aims, the local hunters might supply feigned information which is beneficial to them, such as subsidy the government offers in order to sustain their life. Without ruling out such possibilities, the author cannot justifiably conclude that the number of the deer is decreasing哇　这种可能性都能想到.

Even assuming the existence of the reduction of the deer, the mere fact that the decrease of the deer which was reported by local hunters is insufficient evidence that their trouble in migrating is primary contribution. While a causal correlation relies on a strong evidence of causality, in itself it is enough这句话什么意思啊. The author must also account for all other possible factors leading to phenomena. It is very likely that the poaching and polluting lead to the result. It is the common sense that most of the extinction of the species are attributed by human behaviors, which have changed our society as far as influenced the nature有点偏　不如直接说accelerated the deterioration of the nature. Furthermore, the factor of pollution is more serious in harm to animal. Lacking evidence that it is rising of temperature that causes the decrease, the author cannot hastily draw a conclusion.

Finally, the author observes a correlation between the difficulty of migration and the global warming trends, then concludes that the former is the cause of the latter. However, the author fails to rule out other possible explanation for this obstacle of migration. The change of local terrain which is result of earthquake is very possible for disturbing the migration, or even harmful to deer's existence你的思路好宽啊　合理的可能性.


In conclusion, though the agreement seems plausible, in fact, the recommendation relies on certain assumption that renders it unconvincing as it stands. Not only does it leave out such key issues, but also cites in the analysis the evidence, which does not lend strong support to what author claims. To bolster the conclusion, the author has to provide clearer statistical evidence about reduction of the population of arctic deer. To better evaluate the recommendation, I would like to know more details to demonstrate whether the temperature is certainly rising in the area where the deer habit.　
觉得你开头和结尾好呢　中间的部分可能性有不合理的地方稍微改一下吧．．．
觉得你ＩＳＳＵＥ更好

cnwzlyUID：2634423

Merely based on unfounded assumption and dubious evidence, the author advocates the conclusion that the decrease of the arctic deer population is due to recent global warming trends. To justify this assertion, the author provides the evidence that the habitat of the deer is the migration across the frozen sea during the winter. In addition, she cites the reported from local hunters who witness the reduction of arctic deer. Although, the argument seems to be convincible at first thought, it has several critical flaws that undermine the line of reasoning.

To begin with, it is a fallacy to equate reduction of arctic deer with the rise of global temperature. Without analyzing the specifics which support the author's conclusion, declining trends in arctic deer is still suspicious and unclear. Firstly, the report about the reduction provided by local hunters is doubtful, since the remains of the deer which might live on a large inland and have not been found by the hunters, might be even larger than before. Moreover, with the personal aims, the local hunters might supply feigned information which is beneficial to them, such as subsidy the government offers in order to sustain their life. Without ruling out such possibilities, the author cannot justifiably conclude that the number of the deer is decreasing.

Even assuming the existence of the reduction of the deer, the mere fact that the decrease of the deer which was reported by local hunters is insufficient evidence that their trouble in migrating is primary contribution. While causality relies on strong evidence, in itself it is enough. The author must also account for all other possible factors leading to phenomena. It is very likely that the poaching and polluting lead to the result. It is the common sense that most of the extinction of the species are attributed by human behaviors, which have led to the deterioration of the nature. Furthermore, the factor of pollution is more serious in harm to animal. Lacking evidence that it is rising of temperature that causes the decrease, the author cannot hastily draw a conclusion.

Finally, the author observes a correlation between the difficulty of migration and the global warming trends, then concludes that the former is the cause of the latter. However, the author fails to rule out other possible explanation for this obstacle of migration. The change of local terrain which is result of earthquake is very possible for disturbing the migration, or even harmful to deer's existence.

In conclusion, though the agreement seems plausible, in fact, the recommendation relies on certain assumption that renders it unconvincing as it stands. Not only does it leave out such key issues, but also cites in the analysis the evidence, which does not lend strong support to what author claims. To bolster the conclusion, the author has to provide clearer statistical evidence about reduction of the population of arctic deer. To better evaluate the recommendation, I would like to know more details to demonstrate whether the temperature is certainly rising in the area where the deer habit.