- UID
- 674178
- 在线时间
- 小时
- 注册时间
- 2011-9-21
- 最后登录
- 1970-1-1
- 主题
- 帖子
- 性别
- 保密
|
84) The following is a letter to the editor of an environmental magazine.
Two studies of amphibians in Xanadu National Park confirm a significant decline in the numbers of amphibians. In 1975 there were seven species of amphibians in the park, and there were abundant numbers of each species. However, in 2002 only four species of amphibians were observed in the park, and the numbers of each species were drastically reduced. One proposed explanation is that the decline was caused by the introduction of trout into the park's waters, which began in 1975. (Trout are known to eat amphibian eggs.)
Write a response in which you discuss one or more alternative explanations that could rival the proposed explanation and explain how your explanation(s) can plausibly account for the facts presented in the argument.
This argument is well presented yet far-fetched. It lays a claim that the decline of amphibians was caused by the introduction of trout into the park's waters. Nevertheless, this explanation is in effect hardly convincing due to several flaws after a close scrutiny, albeit it may appear plausible at a cursory glance.
First off, a threshold problem arises in this argument that the author assumes that the decline in the number of species is caused by the trout other than other factors. In this situation, the author certainly thinks that only trout eat amphibian eggs. However, this contention is open to a number of interpretations. For example, the trout might find it hard to locate the amphibian eggs because the Xanadu National Park was so large. We would never know if there exists other animals that could feed on amphibian eggs. What if amphibians were just not compatible with the environment there since there was an arid duration? Hence, without accounting for as well as ruling out other likely scenarios, by no means could the author claim that the decline of the number of the amphibians were caused by the introduction of trout.
Moreover, even though the author might be able to provide evidence for us to deduce a solution to the problem presented above afterwards, the argument still maintains ill-conceived. Another problem could be located that the editor contends that the results of the two studies are reliable. They may be obtained by a group of experts in a meticulous way to conduct these studies but it's totally possible that the park is too large for men to do researches thoroughly. Perhaps there were more than four species of amphibians in the park in 2002 but it would take a painstaking work to conduct such a research to confirm it. As is universally known, a regular way to conduct research in a relative large area is to select some representative places to do researches. But this method might not work when it comes to animals, for there might be ones with anomalous characteristics such as staying under shades. To corroborate his point, the author should pay a close heed to as well as cope with the representative possibilities mentioned above. Only the evidence of proving the ability of conducting studies in this park is the key to bolstering his conclusion.
Ultimately, even if the foregoing assumptions might turn out to be supported by ensuing evidence, a crucial problem remains that the author apparently assumes that the decline was gradual from 1975 to 2002. But this doesn't make sense since there is no evidence extracted from this argument. In this light, it's reasonable to cast doubts upon the author's presumption which I reject as inadequate, in that the decline might be abrupt. For instance, the author omits to inform us about the situation of 2001. Perhaps the number of the amphibians was as many as that of 1975 but a sudden calamity occurred in 2001. This could explain the decline as well without counting the introduction of trout. Pursuing this line of reasoning, it proves to be the author's responsibility to mull over his assumption and then furnish it with cogent evidence so as to pave the way for a more tenable argument.
In retrospect, it seems precipitous for the author to jump to the conclusion based on a series of problematic premises. To dismiss the specter of implausibility of this argument, the author ought to come to grips with all existing flaws, such as the environmental factors, the reliability of both studies, and the possible explanation of the decline. After all, feckless attempts with a fallible method could be nothing but a fool's errand. Thus, only by grasping the gist of this argument could the author draw a convincing conclusion.
631words,30min |
|
京公网安备11010202008513号 京ICP证101109号 京ICP备12012021号
发表于 2011-10-20 11:09:08
收藏
收藏
楼主
有你这句话，明天我要秒杀一切了~
