AWA-Argument
Prompt: "The following editorial appeared in the Broomall County Times-Picayune: The Gordon Act, which established a wildlife refuge in the Big Dark Swamp, is currently up for reauthorization. The act prohibits the building of roads or cutting of old growth trees in the swamp, though it permits hunting. Many blamed logging activities for the decline of the bird population, especially that of the dappled grackle. The grackle population has continued to decline since the passage of the law, demonstrating that the Gordon Act has not been sufficient to protect the species. Another nearby refuge, the Wayne County Marsh Habitat, bans all mining, logging, and hunting. Wayne County officials have not reported a decline in the grackle population there. This proves that hunting, not logging, was responsible for the population drop in Broomall County. Thus, Broomall County should not reauthorize the Gordon Act unless it is amended to include the same provisions as those in Wayne County"
Assignment: Discuss how well-reasoned you find this argument. In your discussion, be sure to analyze the line of reasoning and the use of evidence in the argument. For example, you may need to consider what questionable assumptions underlie the thinking and what alternative explanations or counterexamples might weaken the conclusion. You can also discuss what sort of evidence would strengthen or refute the argument, what changes in the argument would make it more logically sound, and what, if anything, would help you better evaluate its conclusion.
RESPONSE -
The editor of the Broomall County Times-Picayune is of the conclusion that hunting and not logging was responsible for the population drop of the dappled grackle in Broomall County. He further asserts that Broomall County should not reauthorize the Gordon Act, which currently does not ban hunting, unless it is amended to include the same provisions as those in Wayne County, i.e., to ban hunting along with logging and mining.
To reach his conclusion he cites the evidence that the population of the dappled grackle has continued to decline even after the passage of the Gordon Act. He indicates further that in another nearby refuge, the Wayne County Marsh Habitat, which bans all mining, logging, and hunting, officials have not reported a decline in the grackle population. The reasoning of the editor is not that sound as he seems to have made quite a few unfounded assumptions.
First of all, he assumes that the provions of the Gordon Act are not sufficient to protect the bird species. He fails to provide evidence that the Act has been enforced effectively and that no illegal logging activities had taken place in the swamp since the act came into force. If evidence is provided that in fact illigal logging has not stopped, then it would mean that it is infact logging that is responsible for the decline of bird population as many had blamed and that enforcement and not profisions of the Act are the main culprit.
Secondly he needs to provide data to show how many of the birds are lost to hunting. If people are not at all interested in killing the birds, then whether you permit hunting or ban it should have no bearing on the bird population.
Finally he needs to show that Wayne County and Broomall County are comparable. what if the grackle is present in abundance in Wayne County. Or what if the ban for logging is effectively enforced in Wayne County. Untill unless it is shown that the two County are simillar to each other and bird conservation data from one area can be applied to the other, the reasoning would be flawed.
Thus, in the current form, the argument is flawed. The argument can be more convincing if enough evidence can be provided that hunters are actually killing a lot of Grakle birds, that illigal logging has not continued even after the Gordon Act came into force, and that Wayne County and Boomall County are simillar enough so as to apply results achieved at one place to the other.
Prompt: "The following editorial appeared in the Broomall County Times-Picayune: The Gordon Act, which established a wildlife refuge in the Big Dark Swamp, is currently up for reauthorization. The act prohibits the building of roads or cutting of old growth trees in the swamp, though it permits hunting. Many blamed logging activities for the decline of the bird population, especially that of the dappled grackle. The grackle population has continued to decline since the passage of the law, demonstrating that the Gordon Act has not been sufficient to protect the species. Another nearby refuge, the Wayne County Marsh Habitat, bans all mining, logging, and hunting. Wayne County officials have not reported a decline in the grackle population there. This proves that hunting, not logging, was responsible for the population drop in Broomall County. Thus, Broomall County should not reauthorize the Gordon Act unless it is amended to include the same provisions as those in Wayne County"
Assignment: Discuss how well-reasoned you find this argument. In your discussion, be sure to analyze the line of reasoning and the use of evidence in the argument. For example, you may need to consider what questionable assumptions underlie the thinking and what alternative explanations or counterexamples might weaken the conclusion. You can also discuss what sort of evidence would strengthen or refute the argument, what changes in the argument would make it more logically sound, and what, if anything, would help you better evaluate its conclusion.
RESPONSE -
The editor of the Broomall County Times-Picayune is of the conclusion that hunting and not logging was responsible for the population drop of the dappled grackle in Broomall County. He further asserts that Broomall County should not reauthorize the Gordon Act, which currently does not ban hunting, unless it is amended to include the same provisions as those in Wayne County, i.e., to ban hunting along with logging and mining.
To reach his conclusion he cites the evidence that the population of the dappled grackle has continued to decline even after the passage of the Gordon Act. He indicates further that in another nearby refuge, the Wayne County Marsh Habitat, which bans all mining, logging, and hunting, officials have not reported a decline in the grackle population. The reasoning of the editor is not that sound as he seems to have made quite a few unfounded assumptions.
First of all, he assumes that the provions of the Gordon Act are not sufficient to protect the bird species. He fails to provide evidence that the Act has been enforced effectively and that no illegal logging activities had taken place in the swamp since the act came into force. If evidence is provided that in fact illigal logging has not stopped, then it would mean that it is infact logging that is responsible for the decline of bird population as many had blamed and that enforcement and not profisions of the Act are the main culprit.
Secondly he needs to provide data to show how many of the birds are lost to hunting. If people are not at all interested in killing the birds, then whether you permit hunting or ban it should have no bearing on the bird population.
Finally he needs to show that Wayne County and Broomall County are comparable. what if the grackle is present in abundance in Wayne County. Or what if the ban for logging is effectively enforced in Wayne County. Untill unless it is shown that the two County are simillar to each other and bird conservation data from one area can be applied to the other, the reasoning would be flawed.
Thus, in the current form, the argument is flawed. The argument can be more convincing if enough evidence can be provided that hunters are actually killing a lot of Grakle birds, that illigal logging has not continued even after the Gordon Act came into force, and that Wayne County and Boomall County are simillar enough so as to apply results achieved at one place to the other.
