求拍！argu 83！附提纲！

cakeluv

83 The following is a letter to the editor of anenvironmental magazine.

"In 1975 a wildlife census found that there wereseven species of amphibians in Xanadu
National Park, with abundant numbers ofeach species. However, in 2002 only four species of amphibians were observed inthe park, and the numbers of each species were drastically reduced. There hasbeen a substantial decline in the numbers of amphibians worldwide, and globalpollution of water and air is clearly implicated. The decline of amphibians inXanadu National Park, however, almost certainly has a different cause: in 1975,trout—which are known to eat amphibian eggs—were introduced into thepark."
Write a response in which you discuss whatspecific evidence is needed to evaluate the argument and explain how theevidence would weaken or strengthen the argument.

提纲如下
1、观察可靠吗？谁观察的？（观察人是否专业？）什么时候观察的？（观察时间长短？冬天观察，动物冬眠。）
2、drastically reduce, 数据支撑？
3、全球环境问题导致与本地减少，可能存在unknown correlation。（是unknown但是exsits）
4、是否还有其他可能的原因导致减少？
5、既然trout是were introduced，那么原因为何？（for ecological balance, since, numbers of amphibians were overloaded in park. Thus, no wonder it would decline.）


正文：（437字）尝试用粗暴模板写的第一篇，用时35分钟。。。sigh…又超时了。。。
In this argument, the editor argues that the decline of amphibians in Xanadu National Park
is result from introducing trout, an animal which are known to eat amphibian eggs. Although this argument may be reasonable at first glance, however, it is ill-conceived. These reasons are stated as follow.

In the first place, the arguer assumes that only four species of amphibians were observed in the park in 2002, and the number of them were drastically reduced, compare to 1975. It might be true that the species and numbers may decline slightly, yet, without any convincible and statistics data and evidences, we cannot trust the assumption is reliable. It is very likely that the observation in 2002 is invalid, because it has been conducted for merely 2 days, so that, the observer would just omit some of the amphibians which are still living in the park. Or the author should particularize specifically that when the observation is conducted. Cause if it was conducting during winter time, some species of amphibian would have hibernation and due to no records. Thus, this author’s argument is definitely flawed unless he/she can convince me these and other possibilities are unlikely.

In the second place, the author assumes that the reason why amphibians in Xanadu National Park
decline is different with the decline in numbers of amphibians worldwide, which is most due to the pollution of water and air. However, the arguer does not supply any evidences to support this assumption. It is quite possible that it does have some unknown correlation between the worldwide pollution and the decline in the park. He/She should not conclude rashly that the trout is the only reason leads to the observed decline of amphibians.

The last but not the least important, even if the evidences turn to support the foregoing assumptions. The arguer also mentioned that the trout were introduced into the park, thus, there were some reasons why the authorities of park would do such choices. Perhaps, numbers of amphibians in the park was overloaded, so they introduced trout to keep the ecological balance in the park. Hence, no wonder the numbers of amphibians would decline there. To reach his/her cited conclusion, the arguer must explain why none of these alternatives is available or why none of them is able to sustain.

All in all, the author’s argument mentioned above is not based on valid evidences or reasoning and rife with flawed implication and logical holes. Only he/she offered more statistics data or valid evidences can persuasive me to believe in his/her final conclusion that the trout is the main reason cause the amphibians’ reducing.

竹林中人

关于第一点，文中把那个观测结果当做ａｓｓｕｍｐｔｉｏｎ，这是不严谨的，毕竟是别人的观测结果，是实际存在的，只能质疑可靠性，例如：质疑手段是不是科学的，如果是怎么做的，会出现这种结果，但这么做却是明显不合理的，举出具体的可能性。
最后一点，你想说明的是不是因为引进了ｔｒｏｕｔ造成的减少，但你大部分是在说该不该引进的问题

cakeluv

首先非常 非常感谢。
我最后一段其实是想表达数量减少是正常的，因为trout是被deliberately introduced，因为numbers of amphibians were overloaded there 而如果是这样的话。那就根本无需保护了。是我写的不清楚，没表达到这个意思。
我文章逻辑是不是有些混乱啊？

竹林中人

首先非常 非常感谢。
我最后一段其实是想表达数量减少是正常的，因为trout是被deliberately introduced，因为numbers of amphibians were overloaded there 而如果是这样的话。那就根本无需保护了。是我写的不清楚，没表达到这个意思。
我文章逻辑是不是有些混乱啊？

-- by 会员 cakeluv (2012/7/19 11:06:04)

这篇是有点混乱，赶脚，看你的提纲就看了半天，提纲不要写的太随意了，这么写，所有人都可以写出来，体现不出你自己的分析

cakeluv

好的 多谢了 这篇背着模版写的 反而受束缚了 多谢啊