The following is a letter to the editor of an environmental 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 parks waters, which began in 1920 . But the introduction of trout cannot be the real reason for the Yosemite decline because it does not explain the worldwide decline.
Sample Essay
In this argument, the writer of the letter concludes that global pollution of water and air has caused a decline in the number of amphibians worldwide. To support his or her conclusion, the writer cites the results of two studies, seventy-five years apart, that purportedly show that the number of amphibians in one park in California, Yosemite National Park, have drastically declined. Additionally, the writer casts aside a given reason for the decline, stating that the introduction of trout to the park does not explain the worldwide decline in the number of amphibians. This argument defies simple logic and suffers from several critical fallacies.
First of all, the argument is based on only two studies in one specific part of the world, Yosemite National Park in California. It is impossible to pinpoint a worldwide theory for the decline of amphibians based on any number of studies in only one specific location in the world - the specific varieties of amphibians, geographical conditions and other location specific variables prohibit such a sweeping generalization. One very specific location cannot be used as a model for all other locations, even within one particular country, let alone the entire world. The writer provides no evidenced whatsoever that links the Yosemite study with any purported effects anywhere else in the global environment.
Secondly, the two separate studies were done seventy-five years apart. There is no evidence that the two studies were conducted in a similar manner over the same duration of time or even over the same exact areas of Yosemite National Park, or that the exact same study methods were used. For example, perhaps the first study lasted over an entire year and was conducted by twenty-five experts in amphibious biology, resulting in the finding of seven species of amphibians in abundant numbers. By contrast, perhaps the second study was conducted over a period of one week by a lone high school student as a school science project. The writer offers no basis on which to compare the two studies, leaving it open as to whether the two are truly comparable in their breadth, scope and expertise.
Finally, the writer notes that the decline in the amphibian population has been blamed on the introduction of trout into the parks waters in 1920, but then dismisses that argument on the purely specious basis that it does not explain the worldwide decline. This part of the argument blithely dismisses the very relevant fact that trout are known to eat amphibian eggs. This attempt to prove a negative is the last resort of those in search of some vain attempt to prove the truth of the matter that they are asserting. It is basically impossible to prove a negative this is an attempt to shift the burden of proof back on to the nonbelievers of the argument. The global environmental situation and that of Yosemite National Park are not perfectly correlated, and the fact that the trout may very well be responsible for the decline cannot simply be dismissed without further proof.
In summary, the writer fails to establish any causal relationship between global air and water pollution and the decline of amphibious life worldwide. The evidence presented is extremely weak at best and narrowly focuses on one tiny area of the globe, as well as putting forward as proof two studies about which almost nothing is known. For a stronger argument, the writer would need to directly put forth evidence associating air and water pollution with not only the decline at Yosemite but also throughout other areas of the world.
9月-12月雅思口语考生必看
备考雅思口语考试盲目背诵不可取
雅思口语巧夺高分四大技巧
雅思口语辅导:看肥皂剧 提高成绩
雅思考试;雅思口语常见句型总结
雅思听力技巧之精听
雅思口语:考生在雅思口语中的常见错
雅思口语范文精选:Bad weather
雅思口语考试前1月备考冲刺攻略
应对雅思口语考试中的难题:巧妙转移话题
雅思口语话题解析:A Childhood Toy
雅思口语考试的常见问题和应对方法
雅思口语范文精选:hotel
雅思口语练习:看英文电影提高发音水平
50个雅思口语常用谚语总结
雅思口语7分突破秘笈
雅思口语 话题范文之孟飞
浅谈Part 2中近期出现的建筑话题
雅思口语考试中考官经常会使用的套话
雅思口语训练方法总结
雅思考试:雅思口语话题卡题目之人物篇
雅思口语范文精选:A Handicraft
雅思口语范文精选:an artist
7分口语经验:每天一次talk show
雅思口语范文精选:Family
雅思口语考试秘诀传授:要化抽象为具体
解读雅思口语话题之Place话题
雅思口语话题范文之主持人
口语学习两大误区:盲目跟读课文与录音
雅思口语高频话题答题方法:老人与年轻人
不限 |
英语教案 |
英语课件 |
英语试题 |
不限 |
不限 |
上册 |
下册 |
不限 |