Help Critique my GRE Essay? :)

[absande]

This is an argument task topic off of the ETS page. I used a random number generator to pick the topic, and timed it out to 30 minutes. I am using Magoosh as my study prep, so I am using the guidelines used from them! This is my first attempt at an argument task, so any help would be appreciated! Thanks in advance!

 

Topic:

The following is a letter to the editor of an environmental magazine.

"Two studies of amphibians in Xanadu National Park confirm a significant decline in the numbers of amphibians. In 1975 there were seven species of amphibians in the park, and there were abundant numbers of each species. However, in 2002 only four species of amphibians were observed in the park, and the numbers of each species were drastically reduced. One proposed explanation is that the decline was caused by the introduction of trout into the park's waters, which began in 1975. (Trout are known to eat amphibian eggs.)"

Write a response in which you discuss one or more alternative explanations that could rival the proposed explanation and explain how your explanation(s) can plausibly account for the facts presented in the argument.

 

Essay:

The argument that the introduction of trout into the park’s waters is to blame for the decrease of the number of amphibious species is flawed for numerous reasons. There are several different reasons and possibilities that a decrease in the numbers of species can occur. The fact that the trout were introduced in 1975, and almost 30 years later there’s a decrease in numbers, could be a mere coincidence.

All species must compete for survival, even in parks. The seven original amphibious species in the park may have competed other species to extinction. The animals must compete for food, mating, shelter, water, and several other things. Therefor, seven species in close quarters in a park could have been too much demand on the environment, leading some species to fall off the grid.

The time between 1975 and 2002 is almost 30 years, which can be well more than a lifetime in many species. Similar to how normal environments change, the park where these animals live also changes. A drop in numbers could have resulted in an environmental change such as more or less rain in certain years, or maybe the park’s management changed over the years, resulting in a change in the upkeep of the park facilities. The amount of how this park could have changed in a matter of 27 years is endless. 

The letter states that the trout were introduced in 1975 and 27 years later they noticed the decrease in the amphibians. Meaning, the amphibians could have dropped in numbers at any point between those times. It could simply be a happenchance that the trout were introduced into the park at that time. The amphibians could have started to slowly decrease before then, or they could have had a more drastic change maybe only a few years before the numbers were recorded in 2002. Since the statistics weren’t recorded on a normal basis, there is no way to show when this phenomenon occurred within the park, therefor not being able to blame the trout introduction.

There is no obvious proof to show that the trout are the reason for the reduction of amphibians found in the park. There are several ways this could have occurred over the course of 27 years and a simple cause and effect does not account for the numerous other factors that should be considered in this conclusion.