Writing Feedback / GRE AW Issue 69. "Government should place few, if any, restrictions... [6]

69. "Government should place few, if any, restrictions on scientific research and development"

I agree with the speaker's statement that scientific research should, and would be better off when left freestanding. But there are desperate times when national needs override the independency nature of the researching crusade.

First of all, my contention with the speaker is largely derived from numerous case study. Shining names of those giant scientists and inventors are seldom honored and remembered as government's stooge. They are, more often than not, regular individuals with a keen interest and impressive gift, or working men simply driven by what the their job calls for. For example, the Wright brothers, two young men from Hitty Hawk, Ohio, endeared themselves to the world with their genius invention of the first glider. With pitch, roll and yaw-three simple yet brilliant controls - they conquered the world below them. So it may seem a little incongruous that the brothers were just two humble bicycle mechanics, compared with their shiny achievement. Here, it is their interest in flying birds, other than any outer influence that plays a history-altering roll in the aerospace business. Another apt example would be Ali Whitney, as a common worker, he demonstrates cotton gin, one of the most important inventions in the American history. The motivation for him to devise the machine is the predicament which his badly understaffed plantation was going through. None of the aforementioned names became well known for governmental factors.

Also, another overwhelming reason for my point lies in the common sense that scientific research and development happens to be a course which depends largely and closely on forrunner's achievements. It is a gradual and natural process in which human knowledge accumulates throughout time and history. Today, there is little possibility to find a person who has not been affected by Thomas Edison, for the talented scientist invented the electric bulb which illuminated the whole world down to present. We should not, however, give credits entirely to Edison alone for the accomplishment, because long before his contribution, there were bulbs existing already. Only not as practical as his. It's safe to say that If it were not for those predecessors' discovery and improvement, humanity may well be waiting for a longer time to enjoy economical and safe electricity. One( and even Edison) could hardly develop a comprehensive grasp of the electric technology field in his lifetime. Mandatory orders "requiring" the researcher to devise a notion and carry it right away into fruition would simply be ridiculous and impractical.

Having said that, the government does retain the power and right to interfere scientific research, as long as it has good grounds for the enforcement. National security, societal stability, to name a few, are all justifiable reasons for them to doing so. One need not to look further into the history, just half a century ago, the second world war was teem with such examples. The British government ordered its top scientists to work on national defense-related discipilines, and not long after that, radar was invented to protect the British from German Luftwaffe. The US government jump-started the Manhattan Project, which gave birth to two bombs code-named Fat Man and Little Boy; they are the first glimpse of nuclear weapon witnessed by the whole world.

Moreover, it is also advisable for the government to place detailed yokels on certain fields which scientists are not encouraged to delve into. Take the hot issue surrogacy for instance, there are regulations and strictures on both the doctor and the client. As a biomedical scientific advancement, surrogacy itself represents the victory of human knowledge over infertility. As a social topic, nevertheless, it remains controversial. Because during the process of waiting for the surrogate mother to carry to full term, infertile couples could undergo not only anxiety and strenuous legal problems, but also the moral interrogation of "buying a child". The same is true with clone technology. Stirring up such emotions and debates serves no good to societal stability, rather, it may generate a pandemic hysteria. Thus, scientific research turns out to serve a counterproductive purpose to our humanity.

In general, scientific research and development is by nature free; it could not and should not be fettered by government's will. But when problems which apparently the central government is able to deal with cries out for solution, it is justifiable for the leaders to impose caveats and restrictions on certain domain, so long as they are doing it for the public good.

Writing Feedback / "the real reason for the Yosemite decline" - my argument essay [5]

who can spare a few mins to help me grade this essay? my GRE analytical writing exam is on the horizon, 16 days to go, a little depressed... I have no logic T_T

____________________________________________________________
Argument 150
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."

------------------------------------
This argument looks tenable at first glimpse, but further scrutiny raises several fallacies.
First of all, the author maintains that according to a survey conducted in Yosemite Natural Park, where both the number and the species of amphibians fall drastically from 1915 to 1992, the disappearing species and lost numbers of amphibians are attributed to pollution. But the premise that there are lost species remains weak, the unobserved 3 species of amphibians may be still exist, they just migrate to somewhere else or simply doggo in the mountainous area in the park.

Even if the decrease of the number and species was a true fact, it does not directly leads to the conclusion that the air and water in the park are polluted. Here the author commits a circular reasoning mistake. It is not the decreased number of amphibians that indicates pollution, but pollution foreshadows the loss of animals. To start with, the argument offers nothing in detail about the environmental situation of the park. To convince me that the park's water and air are contaminated, I need to know the exact numbers of hard precise official evaluation of its environment. For example, specific analysis of the park's water quality, and its air quality. Only when the numbers indicates a slash of environmental statistics will it convince me that the park is polluted.

Nevertheless, even though it is true that Yosemite's water and air quality turns out be questionable, it does necessarily present itself as the sole contribution to the extinction of species. As mentioned by the author, there is another factor which potentially pushes those amphibians into death, trouts. The park has been introducing trouts, which feeds on the eggs of amphibians, for more than 70 years, the large existence of trouts pose a impressive threat on the survival of amphibians. Probably, They may be eaten by trouts, thus comes the decline of amphibian numbers. Or, the lost variety of amphibians simply has nothing to do with pollution or trouts, the reason could be that they succumbed to natural selection for they fail to adapt themselves to the changing climate. It is nature, instead of others, that takes their course. Also, the drop of number might be an outcome of illegal excessive hunting. Without ruling out these scenarios, the argument could not persuade me to believe that the water and air pollution are solely responsible for the deterioration of amphibians.

Finally, the author falsely expands the analogy to conclude that amphibians are extinguishing globally due to the same reason- water and air pollution in Yosemite park, an unsubstantiated premise in so far.

In final conclusion, the argument is weakened by the failure to establish the deduction that the polluted environment results the decline of amphibians in Yosemite park, and it appears to be unreasonable to hastily generalize that the worldwide tendency precisely tally with Yosemite park.