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.”

嘉文博译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)

参考译文

人类约在7,000年之前抵达Kaliko群岛，在3,000年不到的时间内大多数栖息在Kaliko群岛森林中的大型哺乳动物物种已宣告灭绝。然而，人类的存在不可能是导致这些物种灭绝的一个因素，因为没有任何证据可证明人类与哺乳动物之间有过任何重大的接触。此外，考古学家还发现了多个有鱼骨遭弃置的遗址，但他们却没有发现含有大型哺乳动物骨头的这类遗址，故人类不可能曾猎杀过哺乳动物。因此，肯定是某种气候变迁或其他的环境因素导致了这些物种的灭绝。

在以上述论中，论述者称，人类在7,000年之前就已抵达Kaliko群岛，而在不到3,000年的时间内大多数栖息在Kaliko群岛森林中的大型哺乳动物物种便已宣告灭绝。论述者试图让读者相信，导致这一灭绝的因素不是人类，而是某种气候变迁或者其他某些环境因素。为了提供依据，论述者宣称，没有任何证据可证明人类曾与动物有过重大的接触。论述者此外还宣称，考古学家已发现了多处鱼骨遭弃置的遗址，但却没有发现含有大型哺乳动物骨头的这类遗址;因此，人类不曾猎杀过哺乳动物。这一论断难以令人信服地试图用模棱两可的证据来证明其论点，但却没能探讨有可能解释这类证据的其他可能性。

首先，论述者宣称，人类不可能是动物灭绝的一个因素，仅仅是因为没有证据能表明人类曾与哺乳动物有过重大的接触。哪怕是最简单的逻辑推理便可表明重大的接触有可能发生过。首先，任何一座岛屿均是一个封闭的环境，因此人类和动物有可能在其共处的4,000年期间的某些时候被迫发生过互动。其次，在数千年的时间已过去之后，证据的缺乏并不意味着人类不可能成为动物灭绝的一个因素——这类证据可能在如此漫长的时间内已经很容易地消散或消失。最后，即使假定人类和哺乳动物之间真的没有过重大的接触，人类也可以在甚至根本不触及哺乳动物的情况下，通过破坏其食物来源或自然栖息地而导致它们的灭绝。时至今日，许多物种濒临灭绝，不是因为动物正在遭到人类的捕杀，而是因为它们的食物来源和生存环境正在被毁灭。该项论述因没有探讨这些可能性而遭到削弱。

此外，论述者还列举了考古学家已发现存在鱼骨的多处遗址，但同时又指出考古学家根本没有发现含有大型哺乳动物骨头的这类遗址。据此，论述者指出人类不可能猎杀过动物。这里，论述者再度过于轻率地得出了一个有悖逻辑的结论，因为他(或她)没能去探讨有可能解释这一情形的其他可能性。首先，人类有可能确实猎杀过大型哺乳动物以获取食物，并把动物的骨头一起吃掉，因此就没有任何骨头遗留下来可充当证据。在当今社会的许多文化中，人们都有吃哺乳动物的骨头(以及身体的所有其他部分)的习俗，因此，一个显著的可能性便是，哺乳动物身上就只能没有任何东西遗留下来供考古学家去发现。另一种可能性是，人类以另一种方式来弃置动物的骨头，从而使考古学家无从发现，可能是将骨头焚毁，或丢入大海。缺乏含有大型哺乳动物骨头的遗址，纯粹这一点不能证明什么。由于忽略了这样一些甚为可行的其他可能性，这一论断又一次无法令人信服。

总而言之，论述者过于草率地得出结论，说人类对Kaliko群岛大型哺乳动物的灭绝不负有责任，因为它所依据的是无法确凿证明任何东西的模棱两可的证据。若要使这段论述更具力度，论述者应该囊括直接的证据来证明，人类没有将动物猎杀到灭绝的境地，并证明人类也没有破坏哺乳动物的食物供给和野外栖息地。没有此类信息，该段论述纯属臆想和推测，所陈述的仅是论述者的主观看法而已。