-
deepak1485
- Junior | Next Rank: 30 Posts
- Posts: 16
- Joined: Tue Mar 23, 2010 9:02 pm
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"
The editorial above notes that the population of certain bird has declined even after an act was passed establishing a wild life refuge,mainly because of hunting as the act allows hunting. The author cites the experience of another county as an evidence that prohibition of hunting will increase the population of the bird. Though the argument is well intended ,the author brings in unwarranted assumption and makes an illogical comparison making the argument questionable.
First, The author assumes that after the act was passed logging stopped completely.However this may not be the case, what if people illegally cut trees in this case the birds may have died primarily due to habitat loss.similarly though the act prevents building of roads there may be illegal roads in operation ,if that is the case the birds may have died due to excessive noise and smoke levels.
Second, The author cites the example of another county to argue that his plan of banning hunting will also work in the county under question ,but does provide any tangible reasons to believe that is indeed the case. May be the Wayne county is small and so is effectively policed.May be the government educates people not kill birds.We need to evaluate weather the solution which worked in Wayne county will work in Broomball county. Without a study we cannot comment on the feasibility or effectiveness of the solution.
Moreover, The argument can be strengthened by ruling out other causes of bird death such as non-availability of food ,Non- availability of nesting sites etc.,
not accounting for above factor leaves the argument open to attack.
In conclusion , The argument presented above is flawed in that it has an unwarranted assumption that prohibition indeed lowers logging and an illogical comparison that Wayne county and Broomball county are similar . This argument can be strengthened by showing that prohibition indeed stopped logging, Wayne county and Broomball county are similar and other reasons such as non -availability of food are unlikely.
The editorial above notes that the population of certain bird has declined even after an act was passed establishing a wild life refuge,mainly because of hunting as the act allows hunting. The author cites the experience of another county as an evidence that prohibition of hunting will increase the population of the bird. Though the argument is well intended ,the author brings in unwarranted assumption and makes an illogical comparison making the argument questionable.
First, The author assumes that after the act was passed logging stopped completely.However this may not be the case, what if people illegally cut trees in this case the birds may have died primarily due to habitat loss.similarly though the act prevents building of roads there may be illegal roads in operation ,if that is the case the birds may have died due to excessive noise and smoke levels.
Second, The author cites the example of another county to argue that his plan of banning hunting will also work in the county under question ,but does provide any tangible reasons to believe that is indeed the case. May be the Wayne county is small and so is effectively policed.May be the government educates people not kill birds.We need to evaluate weather the solution which worked in Wayne county will work in Broomball county. Without a study we cannot comment on the feasibility or effectiveness of the solution.
Moreover, The argument can be strengthened by ruling out other causes of bird death such as non-availability of food ,Non- availability of nesting sites etc.,
not accounting for above factor leaves the argument open to attack.
In conclusion , The argument presented above is flawed in that it has an unwarranted assumption that prohibition indeed lowers logging and an illogical comparison that Wayne county and Broomball county are similar . This argument can be strengthened by showing that prohibition indeed stopped logging, Wayne county and Broomball county are similar and other reasons such as non -availability of food are unlikely.
