编辑点评: 研习GRE作文考试的优秀范文不仅可以学到有用的词汇和句子,更能从中学习逻辑的构建方式和作文框架的结构等内容,本文是GRE作文考试Issue类型的范文,希望对同学们的备考有所帮助。
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 park s 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 park s 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.
心灵鸡汤:妈妈脸上的伤疤
对那些嫉恨你的人心怀感激!
爱的伤疤The Scars of Love
哲理故事:移石
心灵鸡汤:人在弥留之际的五大憾事
情感天地:你的心事我永远不懂
双语阅读:男孩与苹果树的故事
我是个无名小卒,你呢?
心灵鸡汤:秋千和拥抱A Swing and A Hug
心灵鸡汤:爱父母就聊聊这些吧!
希腊神话:爱神丘比特的故事
脱口秀:女王奥普拉·温弗瑞十五句名言
关于生活态度的英语谚语名言
我喜欢这种淡淡的感觉!
遥远的幸福《安妮日记》节选
战士的最后一封情书 ,感人肺腑
橡皮与铅笔友情故事
男性心目中完美女人:棕发蓝眼身材丰满
心灵鸡汤:代表一生经历的四个词
心灵鸡汤:8位名人的新年寄语
心灵鸡汤:一定要问父母的8件事
脚下的草地才是最绿
现代小诗:《爱的絮语— 致恋人》
老爸寄语:给青春期女儿的7个建议
有声美文:我的另一个家
心灵鸡汤:珍视爱的光辉Admire Their Glow
心灵鸡汤无言的父爱
赏析钱钟书写给林书武三封英语信
心灵鸡汤:英文情书 ,拿破仑致约瑟芬
名人一句话:爱的世界
不限 |
英语教案 |
英语课件 |
英语试题 |
不限 |
不限 |
上册 |
下册 |
不限 |