- UID
- 678298
- 在线时间
- 小时
- 注册时间
- 2011-10-3
- 最后登录
- 1970-1-1
- 主题
- 帖子
- 性别
- 保密
|
The following is a letter to the editor of an environmental
magazine.\n”+
“In 1975 a wildlife census found that there were seven species of
amphibians in Xanadu National Park, with 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.
There has been a substantial decline in the numbers of amphibians
worldwide, and global pollution of water and air is clearly implicated.
The decline of amphibians in Xanadu National Park, however, almost
certainly has a different cause: in 1975, trout—which are known to eat
amphibian eggs—were introduced into the park.\n”+
“Write a response in which you discuss what specific evidence is needed
to evaluate the argument and explain how the evidence would weaken or
strengthen the argument.”;
In this letter, the editor concludes that the decline of the amphibians was caused by the introduction of trout into the park’s waters. To support his conclusion, the editor cites the number of the amphibians species from 1975 to the year 2001.At first glance, the argument appears to be somewhat reasonable, Actually, further reflection tells me that the argument has a myriad of assumptions and hole.
First and foremost, the author presumptuously assumes that the trout is the main factor which leads to the decrease of the amphibians species and the numbers, but the editor fails to inform us some other information to support his conclusion. It is highly possible that there are more kinds of amphibians in this park, just the study group did not see them, the editor unfairly assume that not observing equals to not exist, the editor also fails to take into the possibility that the study only observed for few days which can not represent the real condition, it perhaps that some other kinds of amphibians indeed live in this park.
In addition, even the species decreased from the year 1974 to the year 2001, we cannot conclude that it is the trout ,not others ,that contributing to the decline of the amphibians’ number. It is perhaps the case that in this period of time, the amphibians committed a deadly disease that gives rise to the shrink of the numbers of amphibians, there is also likely that the climate of this area have changed a lot during this period of time, such as the huge increase of the temperature, the plants in this area have decreased for the modernization utilities, and there is also the case that the water of this area has been polluted .ifthere are a lot of mining factories on the bank of this river which across the park, it is perhaps that when the animal drank the polluted the water, they died.
Moreover, the author commits a fallacy called “hastily generalization”, even if the species decreased in number, the author cannot assume that the trout is the main reason for the decease of the amphibians of this park. It is highly possible the case that most of the amphibians have been transmitted to other areas or other parks, but the editor does not provide any information about this, if the amphibians has been transmitted to other places and have lived for a good lives, the author cannot claim that it is the trout that makes brings about the decline of the species.
In conclusion, this argument actually has several flaws as discussed above, to make this argument more convincing , the author would have to take into every possible consideration account and provide more information to evaluate this claim.
|
|
京公网安备11010202008513号 京ICP证101109号 京ICP备12012021号
发表于 2011-12-8 21:00:14
收藏
收藏
