【辉太郎杀G大队】7/16业 Argument150 by MC dragonfly

lmcdragonflyUID: 2601914

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."
WORDS: 450
TIME: 00:32:40
DATE: 2009-7-16 下午 10:12:32

Supposing that the pollution rather than the introduction of trout causes the decline of amphibians in Yosemite National Park, the author comes to a conclusion that the global pollution of water and air result in the decline in numbers of amphibians worldwide. The argument is well presented, but not cogent. Several critic flaws seriously undermine the validity of the reasoning.

First of all, the results of the two studies are not convincing as the author assumed. The author fails to provide any detail information to confirm the reliability of the studies. We are not sure whether the study in 1992 is conducted by an authorized organization. It is entirely possible that it is their carelessness and the limited time spent on the study leads to the final result. Without detailed information, it is also difficult for us to believe a study carried out nearly 100 years ago. If the results of the study cannot be convinced, the basis of the argument is weakened thoroughly.

Secondly, even if we recognize the validity of the studies, the author unfairly rules out the possibility that the introduction of the trout into the park's waters leads to the decline of amphibians in Y.
The author didn't provide any evidence to support this assertion and make a hasty conclusion only based on the unwarranted logic that the introduction of trout can not explain the worldwide decline. It is entirely possible that the special factor to blame for the decline in Y.

Moreover, even if it were not the trout leads to the decline, the author fails to establish the cause-and-effect relationship between the water and air pollution and the decline. Many factors maybe involved in the decline of the amphibians. For example, the gloabal warming and climate change in the park in recent scores of years leads to the condition. It is also possible that the increasing numbers of tourists contributes to the decline. Without considering and ruling out such factors, how can the author safely make such an irresponsible conclusion.

Finally, even the pollution of water and air were the cause of the reduction of amphibians, the author unfairly assumes that a single sample in Y can infer the overall situation worldwide. The world is so large that different places share little similarity in geography characters and climate conditions. Perhaps the pollution of water and air in Y is typical and can't be applied to explain the decline worldwide. The sample in Y is insufficient to make the general judgement.

In summary, the argument is unconvincing. To bolster the argument, more detailed information should be given to ensure the validity of the two studies. More evidence are also required to make the unwarranted assumptions more reasonable.

ApplemangoUID: 2661244

Supposing that the pollution rather than the introduction of trout causes the decline of amphibians in Yosemite National Park, the author comes to a conclusion that the global pollution of water and air result in the decline in numbers of amphibians worldwide. The argument is well presented, but not cogent. Several critic flaws seriously undermine the validity of the reasoning.
First of all, the results of the two studies are not convincing as the author assumed. The author fails to provide any detail information to confirm the reliability of the studies. We are not sure whether the study in 1992 is conducted by an authorized organization. It is entirely possible that it is their carelessness and the limited time spent on the study leads to the final result. Without detailed information, it is also difficult for us to believe a study carried out nearly 100 years ago. If the results of the study cannot be convinced, the basis of the argument is weakened thoroughly.
Secondly, even if we recognize the validity of the studies, the author unfairly rules out the possibility that the introduction of the trout into the park's waters leads to the decline of amphibians in Y. The author didn't provide any evidence to support this assertion and make a hasty conclusion only based on the unwarranted logic that the introduction of trout can not explain the worldwide decline. It is entirely possible that the special factor to blame for the decline in Y.
Moreover, even if it were not the trout leads to the decline, the author fails to establish the cause-and-effect relationship between the water and air pollution and the decline. Many factors maybe involved in the decline of the amphibians. For example, the gloabal warming and climate change in the park in recent scores of years leads to the condition. It is also possible that the increasing numbers of tourists contributes to the decline. Without considering and ruling out such factors, how the author can safely make such an irresponsible conclusion.

Finally, even the pollution of water and air were the cause of the reduction of amphibians, the author unfairly assumes that a single sample in Y can infer the overall situation worldwide. The world is so large that different places share little similarity in geography characters and climate conditions. Perhaps the pollution of water and air in Y is typical and can't be applied to explain the decline worldwide. The sample in Y is insufficient to make the general judgment.
In summary, the argument is unconvincing. To bolster the argument, more detailed information should be given to ensure the validity of the two studies. More evidence are also required to make the unwarranted assumptions more reasonable.

就只有中间蓝色的那个语法错误，其他都不错呢。