【求拍】 两篇 argument
Argu 45
In this argument, the author concludes that the decline in arctic deer population is the result of their failure in migration patterns across the frozen sea caused by the recent global warming trend. To support the conclusion, the author cites the following facts: (1) reports of local hunters indicating that the deer population is declining; (2) correlation between global warming and decline in deer population. Close scrutiny of each of these facts, however, reveals that none of them lend credible support to the conclusion.
First, the argument concludes based on a known correlation between decline in deer population and global warming trend that the latter is attributable, at least partly, to the former. Yet the correlation alone amounts to scant evidence of the claimed cause-and-effect relationship. Perhaps the decline can be caused by other factors such as migration, excessive hunting as well, which is absent in this particular case. Moreover, there is no evidence to show that the sea ice in deer-living district appears to melt. If this is the case, then conclusion that the global warming incurs the decline in deer population would lack any merit whatsoever.
Secondly, the author provides no evidence that the results are statistically reliable considering it is just a report by local deer hunters. We have sufficient reason to doubt whether the hunter’s report are credible. It is entirely possible that in order to discourage other hunters from coming to Canada’ s arctic region thus protecting their own benefits, the local hunters lies in this case. Lacking evidence of sufficiently representative respondents, the author cannot justifiably rely on the hunter’s report to draw any conclusion whatsoever.
Finally, the cited evidence about the reason why the deer in arctic decline might be unreliable in other respects as well. The author overlooks the possibility that it is the local hunters’ abusive hunting that causes the deer population decline. And the author also ignores the likelihood that the industrial pollution endangers the deer’s survival. Without ruling out those possible scenarios, the author cannot reasonably rely on the given evidences to support the claim that the failure of following their migration pattern across the frozen sea makes the population of the deer decline.
In sum, the conclusion relies on certain doubtful assumptions that render it unconvincing as it stands. To bolster the conclusion, the author must provide that (1) reliable statistics about the population of deer in arctic region; （2）a scientific study that shows the global warming is the cause of the decline of the deer population. To better access the conclusion, I would need to know whether there exist other reasons that cause the decline of the deer population, along with the evidence that deer’s migration patterns are really be submerged by the uplifting sea level.
Argument 20
In this argument, the author concludes that in order to attain a 50 percent reduction in moped accidents during the summer months, Balmer island’s council should also enforce similar limits on moped rental as the neighboring island of torseau did last year. To support the conclusion, the author cites the successful example of torseau, which harvest an obvious decrease in moped accidents when enacting a same limit. Close scrutiny of the fact, however, reveals that it fails to lend credible support to the conclusion.
First, the argument relies on what might be a false analogy between balmer island and torseau. In order to demonstrate that balsmer island can also achieve a same reduction in moped accidents as torseau did, the author must assume that all the relevant circumstances involving the causation of the accident are essentially the same. However, the assumption is unwarranted. It is entirely possible that torseau broadened their road and improve the traffic system last year which actually contributed to the decline in the car accident. Or perhaps that the local people in torseau have a stronger sense of safety on road due to the persistent traffic accidents.
Secondly, the argument concludes based on a known correlation between limit on moped rental and reduction in moped accident that the former is attributable to the latter. Yet the correlation amounts to scant evidence of the claimed cause-and-effect relationship. Perhaps the decrease in moped accident can be caused by other factors such as speed limit, better road condition as well, which is absent in this particular case. Moreover, the author overlooks the possibility that mopeds can be the victims of the accidents in which they have no fault any more. If this is the case, then the conclusion that by limiting the moped rental, the accident will accordingly decline would lack any merit whatsoever.
Finally, the conclusion depends on the assumption that no alternative means of decreasing the moped accidents are available. Yet no evidence is offered to substantiate this assumption. Admittedly, limit on moped rental is some evidence that is likely to achieve the desired result. However, it is entirely possible that means other than this would also do so. Perhaps the desired reduction could be achieved if balmer island broaden their road thus improving the road condition or put some speed limit on mopeds. Without ruling out these alternatives means, the author cannot convince me that restriction on moped can result in the decline in accidents.
In sum, the conclusion relies on certain doubtful assumptions that render it unconvincing as it stands. To bolster the conclusion, the author must provide better evidence that (1) there exists no other alternative means to decrease the moped accidents; (2) limit on moped rental will actually result in the decline of accidents. To better access the assumption, I would also need to know whether the increased people are mainly composed of tourists rather than local people or businessman, along with the proportion the moped accidents take in the whole traffic accidents.
