GRE作文范文 Argument-37

“ Humans arrived in the Kaliko Islands about 7,000 years ago, and within 3,000 years most of the large mammal species that had lived in the forests of the Kaliko Islands had become extinct. Yet humans cannot have been a factor in the species' extinctions, because there is no evidence that the humans had any significant contact with the mammals. Further, archaeologists have discovered numerous sites where the bones of fish had been discarded, but they found no such areas containing the bones of large mammals, so the humans cannot have hunted the mammals. Therefore, some climate change or other environmental factor must have caused the species' extinctions.”

嘉文博譯Sample Essay

In this argument, the arguer states that humans arrived on the Kaliko islands seven thousand years ago and within three thousand years, most of the large mammal species that had lived in the forests there had become extinct. The arguer attempts to convince the reader that it was not humans that caused the extinction but that it was climate change or some other environmental factor that caused the species’ extinction. For support, the arguer claims that there is no evidence that the humans had any significant contact with the animals. The arguer also claims that archaeologists have discovered numerous sites where fish bones have been discarded but no such areas containing the bones of large mammals; therefore humans could not have hunted the mammals. This argument unconvincingly attempts to apply ambiguous evidence to prove the point but fails to address other possibilities that explain such evidence.

In the first place, the arguer states that humans cannot have been a factor simply because there is no evidence that the humans had any significant contact with the mammals. Simple logic would indicate that significant contact was likely. First of all, an island is a closed environment so it is likely that humans and the mammals would be forced to interact at some point during their four thousand year period of coexistence. Secondly, a lack of evidence after thousands of years have passed does not mean that humans cannot have been a factor – such evidence could have easily disintegrated or disappeared over such a long time. Finally, assuming that there was no significant contact between humans and mammals, the humans could have caused the mammals extinction without ever even touching them by destroying their food sources or natural habitats. Many species today are facing extinction due not to the animals being killed by humans, but by the elimination of their food sources and living environments. Failing to address these possibilities critically weakens the argument.

Furthermore, the arguer cites numerous sites where archaeologists have uncovered discarded fish bones, but that the archaeologists have found no such areas containing the bones of large mammals; therefore indicating that humans cannot have hunted the animals. Again, the arguer jumps to an illogical conclusion by failing to address other possibilities explaining the situation. First of all, it is possible that the humans did indeed hunt the large mammals for food, and ate the bones as well so that none were left behind as evidence. Many cultures today eat the bones (as well as all other parts) of mammals so it is a distinct possibility that there was simply nothing left of the mammals to be found by the archaeologists. Another possibility is that the humans discarded the bones in another manner where they could not be found by archaeologists, perhaps by burning them or throwing them into the ocean. The mere lack of a site containing the bones of large mammals proves nothing. By ignoring these other very viable possibilities, the argument again fails to convince.

In summary, the arguer jumps to the conclusion that humans cannot have been responsible for the extinction of the large mammals of the Kaliko Islands based on ambiguous evidence that does not prove anything with certainty. To make the argument stronger, the arguer should include direct evidence that proves that humans did not hunt the animals to extinction, nor did they destroy the mammals’ food supplies and natural habitat. Without such information, the argument is pure speculation and nothing more than a statement of the arguer’s opinion.

(591 words)

參考譯文

人類約在7,000年之前抵達Kaliko群島，在3,000年不到的時間內大多數(shù)棲息在Kaliko群島森林中的大型哺乳動物物種已宣告滅絕。然而，人類的存在不可能是導致這些物種滅絕的一個因素，因為沒有任何證據(jù)可證明人類與哺乳動物之間有過任何重大的接觸。此外，考古學家還發(fā)現(xiàn)了多個有魚骨遭棄置的遺址，但他們卻沒有發(fā)現(xiàn)含有大型哺乳動物骨頭的這類遺址，故人類不可能曾獵殺過哺乳動物。因此，肯定是某種氣候變遷或其他的環(huán)境因素導致了這些物種的滅絕。

在以上述論中，論述者稱，人類在7,000年之前就已抵達Kaliko群島，而在不到3,000年的時間內大多數(shù)棲息在Kaliko群島森林中的大型哺乳動物物種便已宣告滅絕。論述者試圖讓讀者相信，導致這一滅絕的因素不是人類，而是某種氣候變遷或者其他某些環(huán)境因素。為了提供依據(jù)，論述者宣稱，沒有任何證據(jù)可證明人類曾與動物有過重大的接觸。論述者此外還宣稱，考古學家已發(fā)現(xiàn)了多處魚骨遭棄置的遺址，但卻沒有發(fā)現(xiàn)含有大型哺乳動物骨頭的這類遺址;因此，人類不曾獵殺過哺乳動物。這一論斷難以令人信服地試圖用模棱兩可的證據(jù)來證明其論點，但卻沒能探討有可能解釋這類證據(jù)的其他可能性。

首先，論述者宣稱，人類不可能是動物滅絕的一個因素，僅僅是因為沒有證據(jù)能表明人類曾與哺乳動物有過重大的接觸。哪怕是最簡單的邏輯推理便可表明重大的接觸有可能發(fā)生過。首先，任何一座島嶼均是一個封閉的環(huán)境，因此人類和動物有可能在其共處的4,000年期間的某些時候被迫發(fā)生過互動。其次，在數(shù)千年的時間已過去之后，證據(jù)的缺乏并不意味著人類不可能成為動物滅絕的一個因素——這類證據(jù)可能在如此漫長的時間內已經(jīng)很容易地消散或消失。最后，即使假定人類和哺乳動物之間真的沒有過重大的接觸，人類也可以在甚至根本不觸及哺乳動物的情況下，通過破壞其食物來源或自然棲息地而導致它們的滅絕。時至今日，許多物種瀕臨滅絕，不是因為動物正在遭到人類的捕殺，而是因為它們的食物來源和生存環(huán)境正在被毀滅。該項論述因沒有探討這些可能性而遭到削弱。

此外，論述者還列舉了考古學家已發(fā)現(xiàn)存在魚骨的多處遺址，但同時又指出考古學家根本沒有發(fā)現(xiàn)含有大型哺乳動物骨頭的這類遺址。據(jù)此，論述者指出人類不可能獵殺過動物。這里，論述者再度過于輕率地得出了一個有悖邏輯的結論，因為他(或她)沒能去探討有可能解釋這一情形的其他可能性。首先，人類有可能確實獵殺過大型哺乳動物以獲取食物，并把動物的骨頭一起吃掉，因此就沒有任何骨頭遺留下來可充當證據(jù)。在當今社會的許多文化中，人們都有吃哺乳動物的骨頭(以及身體的所有其他部分)的習俗，因此，一個顯著的可能性便是，哺乳動物身上就只能沒有任何東西遺留下來供考古學家去發(fā)現(xiàn)。另一種可能性是，人類以另一種方式來棄置動物的骨頭，從而使考古學家無從發(fā)現(xiàn)，可能是將骨頭焚毀，或丟入大海。缺乏含有大型哺乳動物骨頭的遺址，純粹這一點不能證明什么。由于忽略了這樣一些甚為可行的其他可能性，這一論斷又一次無法令人信服。

總而言之，論述者過于草率地得出結論，說人類對Kaliko群島大型哺乳動物的滅絕不負有責任，因為它所依據(jù)的是無法確鑿證明任何東西的模棱兩可的證據(jù)。若要使這段論述更具力度，論述者應該囊括直接的證據(jù)來證明，人類沒有將動物獵殺到滅絕的境地，并證明人類也沒有破壞哺乳動物的食物供給和野外棲息地。沒有此類信息，該段論述純屬臆想和推測，所陳述的僅是論述者的主觀看法而已。