7.12homework A36 I121

catherineying_wUID: 2616889

1.the problem of the Brim River and boat
2.Paleans needn't to cross the river because of adequate food supply


TOPIC: ARGUMENT37 - Woven baskets characterized by aparticular distinctive pattern have previously been found only in the immediatevicinity of the prehistoric village of Palea and therefore were believed tohave been unique to the Palean people. Recently, however, archaeologistsdiscovered such a "Palean" basket in Lithos, an ancient villageacross the Brim River from Palea. The Brim River is very deep and broad, and sothe ancient Paleans could only have crossed it by boat, but there is noevidence that the Paleans had boats. And boats capable of carrying groups ofpeople and cargo were not developed until thousands of years after the Paleanpeople disappeared. Moreover, Paleans would have had no need to cross theriver-the woods around Palea are full of nuts, berries, and small game. Itfollows that the so-called Palean baskets were not unique to Palea.
WORDS: 425
TIME: 00:35:00
DATE:2009/7/10 10:02:33

A distinctive woven baskets which was once believed to havebeen unique to the Palean people have been found in another ancient villageLithos. This discovery and several founds make the author conclude that thisso-called Palean baskets were not unique to Palea. Although this argument
might seem reasonable at first glance, it isin fact ill-conceived.
A threshold problem involved in the argument is that theauthor's unfair assumption that the ancient Palean cannot cross the riverbecause of the very deep and broad Brin River and the lack of boat. Firstly,the Paleans must lived at least thousands years ago, therefore, we don't knowif the Brim River was that deep and broad at that time. It is very likely thatthe Brim River was very shallow and narrow, but due to thousand years offlushing, it becomes the appearance what it looks like now. Secondly, grantedthe Brim River was deep and broad, we cannot make the conclusion that Paleaswere not able to cross the river. Author also cited that there is no evidencethat the Paleans had boats. Common sense notes us that we cannot assumesomething is no that way with lacking of evidence, it is totally possible thatPaleans had boats but we haven't found yet.
In the second place, the author assumes that Paleans wouldnot cross the river because they had a good supply of food, therefore, theydidn't need to. First of all, the wood s around Palea are full of nuts,berries, and small games now, however, we cannot figure out the exact situationwhen Paleans still exist. It is fairly possible that there hadn’t got that muchfood at that time or

Palleans had run out of food due to increasingpopulation. In addition, we all know that human have the nature to explore theunknown world because of curiosity. Even if the Paleans didn't need to crossthe Brim River to explore the outer world, we cannot draw the conclusion thatthey will not. The Paleans also have social needs.
In sum, all the fact about conditions near the villagePalean are weak in lending strong support to the arguer's final claim. Moreover,he also overlooks the social needs and other possible reasons that leads
to the Paleans’ crossing river. To betterbolster the argument, information about the conditions include the Brim River andsurrounded food at that time should be submitted. In order to be convinced, Iwould also like to have solid evidence to prove that Paleans hadn’t got boats.

catherineying_wUID: 2616889

1.human 前的distinction 是Darwin
2.human后的due to antropogenic effects
3.what should human do
4.决定保护谁的问题

TOPIC: ISSUE121 - "At various times in the geological past, many species have become extinct as a result of natural, rather than human, processes. Thus, there is no justification for society to make extraordinary efforts, especially at a great cost in money and jobs, to save endangered species."
WORDS: 522          TIME: 00:45:00          DATE: 2009/7/12 12:25:09
I am firmly confirmed that we should protect endangered species, however, economic self-interest should take precedence over the culpability we human feel about the extinct and endangered species.
Admittedly, in the geological past, many species have become extinct as a result of nature, or we can say it's the theory of Darwin "Natural Selection". Let us cite an illustration, the extinction of dinosaur. It was due to its big body and lacking of available food, the earth was no longer an appropriate habitat for them. However, such kind of situation, which of the natural-selection distinction, has only happened during the time without human or the time when the affection of human is too tiny to effect the whole natural food chain.
But now the situation has totally altered, especially after the revolution of technology. Human has effected deeply to the nature. Due to human processes, including pollution, over deforestation, over hunting, over fishing, global warming, etc, our natural environment is being threatened, and the extinction of rare species has been accelerated. Professor Edward Wilson of Harvard University, one of the leading authorities in the field of environment, predicted that an average of 100 species disappear from our planet every single day due to human behavior.
We human being should feel responsible, to some extent, to save these endangered species. The extinction of specie represents a destruction of a unique and precious DNA gene. Since the diversity of species is beneficial for human beings, measures must be adopted to protect endangered species. Moreover, better protection for the diversity of the planet's creatures and plants could help shield human from some kinds of fatal diseases. Such as the recent flu H1N1, this of the DNA sequence is made up of human, pig and bird’s flu. I even can't imagine the time when only human and human's domestic animals are left in the world, it could be also the time when our planet is the world of flu.
On the other hand, it is a scientific fact that thousands of species become extinct due to anthropogenic factors every year. In any event, it is far beyond our ability to save them all. By what standards, then should we decide which species are worth saving and which ones are not? In my observation, we tend to favor more cute animals, just like panda. Seldom people cannot be attracted by its appearance; even the signal of WWF is a black and white panda. However, we all know that if due to Darwin's natural selection, panda may have been extinct for decades, it's the human efforts make them live until today. But we all know that there is no logical justification for such a standard. In short, if we just cost the limited money and jobs to save the species in our value and taste, then we are not save endangered species, but a different way to amuse human.   
In sum, at a point when it becomes critical for our own survival as a species to save certain others, then we humans will do so if we are fit—in accordance with Darwin’s observed process of national selection.