2. 外语
  3. The following is a letter to the editor of an environmental magazine. "Two studies of amphibians in Xanadu National Park confirm

The following is a letter to the editor of an environmental magazine. "Two studies of amphibians in Xanadu National Park confirm

admin2021-10-09  58
问题 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.
选项
答案 The author of this letter attributes the decline in the number of amphibians in Xanadu National Park between 1975 and 2002 to the introduction of trout into the park’s waters beginning in 1975. While trout could be the reason behind the decline, since they are known to eat amphibian eggs, the information currently available is not conclusive to qualify the proposed explanation the only one capable of elucidating the fact in the argument. Several alternative possibilities could also account for the decrease in both the number and species of amphibians. Before considering the cause of the reduced amphibian population, we must consider the possibility that the studies confirming the decline are inaccurate. The alleged decline both in species and population could be the result of an underestimate in the 2002 investigation. For example, researchers may have only surveyed a specific area of the park where the amphibian population was particularly low and subsequently extrapolated this regional observation to the entire park. Such a methodology would lead to an ostensible decline in numbers despite the accurate numbers of each species actually remaining constant or even rising. Even if we acknowledge that the amphibian population and number of species had dropped in the 27-year period, there are at least two explanations apart from the introduction of trout that can account for the change. The first is anthropogenic factors. For example, environmental pollution resulting from economic development in the nearby region could have adversely affected the amphibian species’ survival. Amphibians spend the first stage of their life in natural water bodies and may be very sensitive to water quality. If pollution, such as waste discharge containing toxic elements, enters the amphibian habitats, the amphibian population might decrease consequently. Another possible anthropogenic factor which may have impacted the amphibian population is hunting. Amphibians may be hunted for their medical values. If demand for amphibian-derived medicine increased between 1975 and 2002, amphibian hunting in Xanadu National Park could have intensified. Other than human causes, natural factors may also play a role in wiping out amphibians. Drastic environmental changes, other than the presence of trout, could have occurred in the park. Climate change is a likely candidate, which would have a huge impact on amphibians because they cannot regulate their body temperature. Reduced precipitation is capable of worsening the quality of amphibian habitat as well. In these scenarios, amphibians would migrate from the park because it had become inhabitable for them. In a nutshell, there are multiple possible explanations that can account for the decline in the amphibian population and number of species in Xanadu National Park, if the decline is accurate in the first place. However, given the limited information at hand, it is difficult, if not impossible, to determine the real cause(s). Additional information on changes in the park, both manmade and natural, during this timeframe would be helpful. (475 words)
解析     文章开头简明扼要地分析了原作者的逻辑，这一方面是体现考生对于原文意思的理解，另一方面也是为自己后文的写作定下一个提纲，使之不至于跑偏。但需要注意，开头段大家需要同义改写题目，而不是照抄题目。
    第二段在分析原因之前先对数据的合理性进行分析——很明显，如果数据本身不能让人信服，对于数据的分析也失去了意义。这不仅是Argument作文可以用到的技巧，也可以运用到现实的学术写作中。并且，这种分析也同样贴合了Direction的要求。即被观测到的amphibian数量的减少并非源于其真实数量的减少，而是源于错误的观测方法。
    在假设数据本身没有问题时，本文考虑了如何对数据进行不一样的解读，即寻找两栖类动物数量减少的他因。之后两段的分析分别从人类活动(包括污染和捕杀)以及自然环境改变两方面进行了讨论。
    鲑鱼吃掉了两栖动物的蛋，导致其数量减少→两栖动物数量减少，公园引入了鲑鱼
    需要注意的是，有的同学花了很多笔墨来论证“引入鲑鱼”和“两栖动物数量减少”之间不存在因果关系是不对的。第一，我们不能确定它们真的没有因果关系；第二，题目写作指令考查的不是作者自己的逻辑问题。因此要像本文开头所说的： “While trout could be the reason behind the decline, since they are known to eat amphibian eggs, the information currently available is not conclusive…”
转载请注明原文地址:https://jikaoti.com/ti/ESdYFFFM
本试题收录于： GRE ANALYTICAL WRITING题库GRE分类
0

GRE ANALYTICAL WRITING

GRE

相关试题推荐
随机试题
最新回复(0)