|
Bruce 精灵王
 
无敌突击王
- 帖子
- 148
- 精华
- 0
- 积分
- 253
- 学识
- 71
- TS元
- 3
- 威望
- 17
- 魅力
- 7
- TS岁
- 19
|
2#
大 中
小 发表于 2008-3-7 16:06 只看该作者
这是ARGEMENT
还有这篇ARGU也帮忙给些意见 因为很快就要考试了 时间关系 只能求好心人帮忙提高了 谢谢大家,也祝你们考到理想的成绩,爱情事业双丰收
45.The following appeared as an editorial in a wildlife journal.
"Arctic deer live on islands in Canada's arctic region. They search for
food by moving over ice from island to island during the course of a year.
Their habitat is limited to areas warm enough to sustain the plants on
which they feed, and cold enough, at least some of the year, for the ice
to cover the sea separating the islands, allowing the deer to travel over
it. Unfortunately, according to reports from local hunters, the deer
populations are declining. Since these reports coincide with recent global
warming trends that have caused the sea ice to melt, we can conclude that
the decline in arctic deer populations is the result of deer being unable
to follow their age-old migration patterns across the frozen sea."
DATE:2008.3.6
The argument contains some factors that are unwarranted.
First, the present global warming does not necessarily make the number of arctic deer to decline. In addition, the survey is unreliable, and the author fails to provide sufficient evidences to support the real cause. In turn I will discuss the logic fallacies above.
First of all, the editorial observes a correlation between the decline the arctic deer population and the present global warming, then concludes that the later is the cause of the former, however, the editorial fails to rule out other possible reasons for the decline the deer in Canada's arctic area. For example, it is entirely possible that other factors result in the decrease of the deer, such as more hunters kill the deer, there are not enough food now compared to ever before, and the like. Any of these factors might lead to an decline of the dear in the region. Without ruling out such possibilities it is unfair to conclude that the global warming must be responsible for this decrease.
Moreover, the statistics of survey that based only on data from local hunters who reported to the wildlife journal might be unreliable in other respects as well, however, it is entirely possible that these hunters are not representative of the most of hunters overall.
Perhaps what they assumed the number of deer only a small amount because they might in different time and different places where there were deer as they hunting, or maybe they radically have not seen any deer. So the editorial cannot draw the conclusion only through the data stems from what hunters reported.
In addition, the author assumes that the temperature in local region have risen ,but no evidence can support whether the temperature is higher that before, maybe it is lower now. Furthermore, the decrease the deer population accompany with the gradually global warming do not necessarily make the local temperature rise, it can be representative of the condition locally. The author also arbitrarily concludes that only the temperature rise has changed the deer’s migration patterns not the other factors such as over-killed by hunters, the food declined in the large area and the like. Considering the possibilities discussed above, the editorial cannot establish a cause-effect relationship upon which the editorial’s conclusion depends.
In sum, the argument, though it seems have a logical causal among the evidences and conclusion at the first glance, has several fallacies discussed above. The argument should be improved by providing the evidence that the concrete change the deer population presently, whether the temperature rise in the local region, and whether there are other threatening factors influence the living environment of the deer.
|