|
|
Sample Response to Real GRE Argument Questions
Topic # 2: 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 (trout
are known to eat amphibian eggs). But the introduction of trout cannot be
the real reason for the Yosemite decline because it does not explain the
worldwide decline."
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
(who are known to eat amphibian eggs) 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.
(599 words) |
