A84 两栖动物的退化 求拍

冷月钟笛

最近忙着写提纲，复习期中考试ing~ 但求保持一个写作状态~ 期待大家拍砖，做出改进！


Argument84
[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 related to the issue about the decline in the numbers of amphibians in Xanadu national park in view of the data of 2002 and 1975. The writer presents one proposed explanation about this decline: the introduction of trout, an animal species feeding on amphibians, in 1975. There are other more essential factors accounting for this decline, and I will present following.
One possible reason for the declining results could be the errors or potential faults of the two studies. We suppose the results presented by the studies are true, but what if not? After all, the systematic errors caused by the performers and the method taken will for sure affect the results. Maybe in 1975, the performers wrongly included turtles as amphibians, but in 2002 study, turtles were classified into reptiles; maybe the measuring method for the study in 2002 was not suitable for an accurate approach, therefore leading to a declining results; maybe the performers of the study were just high-school students, who treated the data carelessly. Without sufficient information, these possibilities may all affect the result, ultimately leading to a declining one.
Secondly, presuming the studies are well carried out and the results can reflect the truth, there are still other explanations for this decline. One reason could be the huge change in the environment. After all, there have been 27 years long. Maybe conditions of the water body--pH, salt composition and concentration, temperature, oxygen composition and so forth--deteriorate during these years due to the climate variations, human activities and other factors. Maybe toxic compounds and substances are released into the water due to the industrial activities, or human vandalism. As a result, the living conditions could be not that favorable for the amphibians, leading to a decline of the species.
In addtion, except the potential deteriorating environment issue, there could be other species risking the amphibians. The Xanadu national park is a small but complex eco-system, consisting of enormous sorts of species. Different species will interact with each other in different ways as well. Maybe there are other predators against amphibians, like some fishes and snakes; maybe some species compete food against amphibians, therefore leading to the decline of amphibians; maybe some micro-organisms or viruses live on the amphibians and decrease the reproduction rate of them by influencing the metabolism within the amphibians. There are many possibilities which may really account for the declining issue of the amphibians, and the introduction of trout is just one of them.
In retrospect, except the writer’s explanation—the introduction of trout--on the declining issue of amphibians in Xanadu national park, there are many other alternative factors that will account for this result: the validity of the studies, the environment factors, and the different complicated interactions between different species. In order to determine the real reason behind this result, further study should be conducted.


35min----479

ppguo

这篇怎么这么像大剑写的。
你是可以质疑观测结果的准确性，但是角度有点偏激。可以质疑说观测点是否覆盖了整个地区啊，观测时间是不是在动物活动的高峰期，观测时间是不是足够长，等等。一般不说研究人员不负责任，犯低级错误。如果这样说，所有的调查数据都不能相信了。

冷月钟笛

啊 思维僵化了 直接把systematic errors这种试验误差搬上去讲了~ 呵呵~ 我曾经看过大剑点评别人的和他的文章~ 乌龟的问题是一个笑谈~ 看了其他人的坐稳后发现地点调查、时间高低峰这些东西确实都可以扩展，我浅薄了~ 呵呵~

冷月钟笛

大剑读生物，我读化学，可能是进入专业领域了~

ppguo

不过你是很少犯这样的错误，大剑同学被拍地可惨了。

冷月钟笛

这两天出新G的成绩分布了，听说VERBAL难度提升了，心里很有压力啊~ 现在正在看北美范文，他们的文章真的是言辞简要~

ppguo

作文的难度也提高了吗？

冷月钟笛

作文还好~ 只是verbal部分似乎不那么简单了，逻辑推导的难度加大了，感觉绿皮之类的不够用啊~ 红包的单词也令人堪虞~ 数学部分不能错题了，难度也加大了，总之这两天忙完期中考试，要努力复习了！

ppguo

听起来怪吓人的。

冷月钟笛

嗯 有点~ 绿皮和36套提供的verbal难度感觉只有easy和median的水平，hard的偶尔，还是需要练习难题才行~