GREAW: Argument 2: (topic)The following is a letter to the editor of an environment magazine."The decline in the numbers of amphibians worldwide clearly indicates the global pollution of water and air. Two studies of amphibians in Yosemite National Park in California confirm my conclusion. In 1915 there were seven species of amphibians in the park, and there were abundant numbers of each species. However, in 1992 there were only four species of amphibians observed in the park, and the numbers of each species were drastically reduced. The decline in Yosemite has been blamed on the introduction of trout into the park's waters, which began in 1920(trout are known to eat amphibian eggs). But the introduction of trout cannot be the real reason for the Yosemite decline because it does not explain the worldwide decline."

[ Responses ] [ Post a Response ] [ Learning Center ]

Posted by meihua zhao on June 12, 19102 at 09:36:08:

This is an essay of GRE writing assessment, please score it and give me your suggestions of it. I will take the test two weeks later , so I am in urgent need of your advice. Thank you very much for your altruistic help.

My essay:
In this argument, the arguer concludes that the decline in the numbers of amphibians worldwide clearly indicates the global pollution of water and air. To support the argument, the arguer points out that both the numbers of species of amphibians and the numbers of each species of amphibians in Yosemite National Park in California in 1915 are more than those in 1992.In addition , the arguer reasons that since the introduction of trout does not explain the worldwide decline, the decline in the park does not result from trout. The argument suffers from several critical flaws.

In the first place, the arguer fails to rule out the possibility that the introduction of trout has caused the decline of amphibian population in Yosemite National Park. The arguer simply think that the introduction of trout does not explain the worldwide decline, but he does not provide any convincing evidence that it is not the introduction of trout that causes the decline of amphibians in the park. As we know, trout are known to eat amphibian eggs, thus reducing the population of amphibians. In this case, maybe trout are the killer of the amphibians in the park. Furthermore, even it is true that the introduction of trout does not explain the worldwide decline, it does not follow that the introduction of trout can not explain the decline in the park.

In the second place, the arguer fails to establish a causal relationship between the global pollution of water and air and the decline in the numbers of amphibians worldwide. Even if the introduction of trout cannot be the real reason for the Yosemite decline ,which is , of course, an unwarranted assumption, it does not ensure that the global pollution of water and air causes the decline in the numbers of amphibians worldwide . as we know , there are other possible reasons that may result in the decline . For instance , the extinction of the animals or plants on which the amphibians prey on may be the reason why the numbers of species of amphibians and the numbers of each species of amphibians has declined.

To sum up , the argument lacks of credibility because the evidence cited in the analysis does not support what the arguer maintains. To strengthen the argument, the arguer would have to provide the evidence that there are other relevant factors other than the introduction which can explain the decline. To better evaluate the argument, we would need more information about the relationship between the global pollution of water and air and the decline in the numbers of amphibians worldwide.

Responses:

comment Kung 02:25:35 6/14/102 (0)

Post a Response

Name:
Subject:

Comments:
: This is an essay of GRE writing assessment, please score it and give me your suggestions of it. I will take the test two weeks later , so I am in urgent need of your advice. Thank you very much for your altruistic help. : My essay: : In this argument, the arguer concludes that the decline in the numbers of amphibians worldwide clearly indicates the global pollution of water and air. To support the argument, the arguer points out that both the numbers of species of amphibians and the numbers of each species of amphibians in Yosemite National Park in California in 1915 are more than those in 1992.In addition , the arguer reasons that since the introduction of trout does not explain the worldwide decline, the decline in the park does not result from trout. The argument suffers from several critical flaws. : In the first place, the arguer fails to rule out the possibility that the introduction of trout has caused the decline of amphibian population in Yosemite National Park. The arguer simply think that the introduction of trout does not explain the worldwide decline, but he does not provide any convincing evidence that it is not the introduction of trout that causes the decline of amphibians in the park. As we know, trout are known to eat amphibian eggs, thus reducing the population of amphibians. In this case, maybe trout are the killer of the amphibians in the park. Furthermore, even it is true that the introduction of trout does not explain the worldwide decline, it does not follow that the introduction of trout can not explain the decline in the park. : In the second place, the arguer fails to establish a causal relationship between the global pollution of water and air and the decline in the numbers of amphibians worldwide. Even if the introduction of trout cannot be the real reason for the Yosemite decline ,which is , of course, an unwarranted assumption, it does not ensure that the global pollution of water and air causes the decline in the numbers of amphibians worldwide . as we know , there are other possible reasons that may result in the decline . For instance , the extinction of the animals or plants on which the amphibians prey on may be the reason why the numbers of species of amphibians and the numbers of each species of amphibians has declined. : To sum up , the argument lacks of credibility because the evidence cited in the analysis does not support what the arguer maintains. To strengthen the argument, the arguer would have to provide the evidence that there are other relevant factors other than the introduction which can explain the decline. To better evaluate the argument, we would need more information about the relationship between the global pollution of water and air and the decline in the numbers of amphibians worldwide.

[ Responses ] [ Post a Response ] [ Learning Center ]