PLZ comment and rate it. many thanks.- -;

[LouisLin]

45. The following appeared as an editorial in a wildlife journal.
"Arctic deer live on islands in Canada's arctic region. They search for food by moving over ice from island to island during the course of a year. Their habitat is limited to areas warm enough to sustain the plants on which they feed, and cold enough, at least some of the year, for the ice to cover the sea separating the islands, allowing the deer to travel over it. Unfortunately, according to reports from local hunters, the deer populations are declining. Since these reports coincide with recent global warming trends that have caused the sea ice to melt, we can conclude that the decline in arctic deer populations is the result of deer being unable to follow their age-old migration patterns across the frozen sea."

The argument is that global warming resulted in arctic deer population declination. The independent valuable, global warming is positive cause for dependent valuable, the declination of deer population. However, the argument is not cogent. In my opinion, the argument provided false cause and effect relationships to demonstrate its point of view. Secondly, the argument didn’t provide any credible evidence to support its standpoint. Thirdly, the argument didn’t take the other crucial factors into consideration. In the following contents, I will point out several fallacies of this argument.

First of all, the argument thinks that global warming will threaten flora’s existence. That is to say, the temperature is higher, the plants is less. However, I regard this statement as invalid. From my point of view, sunlight and appropriate temperature are indispensable for plant growth. As everybody knows, Arctic regions are too cold to every species to survive. In present time, temperature rising doesn’t perhaps prohibit plant growth and is possible to make great contributions to plant growth instead. On the account the above explanations, we can know that global warming maybe not decrease the deer habitat, in contrast, global warming is possible to push plants flourishing in north polar regions and deers perhaps have abundant provisions.

Secondly, the argument didn’t provide convincing evidence to support its argument. The argument said that the information about declination of deer population was reported by local hunters of Arctic. In my opinion, this statement is short of credible evidence because the local hunters’ saying is not an exact investigation or research. It is possible that local hunters are incapable of hunting deers so that they have a wrong impression that the deer populations are decline. In addition, as I know, time, location play an important role in hunting. Perhaps local hunters were in wrong time or places, consequently, they didn’t see deers. From what is mentioned, I consider local hunters’ saying is not cogent. Moreover, the argument also said that global warming led to ice melt so that deers are unable to migrate. Eventually, the deers in Arctic regions are on the brink of extinction nowadays. Form my point of view, this argument also lacks credible evidence and this argument is also a paradoxical .inference. To elaborate the above statement, most deers had already migrated to the other regions. Besides, if the edibles in Arctic regions are sufficient, the deers are unnecessary to migrate to the next island in order to seek for food. In accordance with the above my demonstration, we can realize that this argument is not entirely sound because it is short of trustworthy evidences.

Thirdly, even through the deer populations in Arctic are declining, in my notion, the argument didn’t take the other crucial factors into account. To elucidate the above declaration, here are so many key factors which affect the numbers of Arctic deers like over-hunting and the increase of Arctic deers’ natural enemies. It is possible that local hunters over hunted Arctic deers so that the deer populations in Arctic are declining now. Furthermore, it is also possible that Arctic deers suffer form their natural enemies attack; therefore, Arctic deers on the edge of extinction today. For example, polar bears prey on Arctic deers that may cause the deer populations in Arctic decline. As mentioned above, I think this argument is not compelling because it oversimplify the reasons of declination of Arctic deer populations and hasty generalize the conclusion of this phenomenon.

To sum up, the argument on the surface presents reasonable explanations and conclusion that may be convinced by many people. Nevertheless, looking deeper into this argument, I notice many fallacies in this argument and about its conclusion. The argument is not only full of over inferences but take many important factors into account as well. Last but not the least, the argument provide no persuasive evidence for us. Therefore, the argument lacks plausibility.

[rockybalboa123]

Hi Louis,
I am a beginner. So please pardon me if I make a mistake. I will present my perspective.

1. "First of all, the argument thinks that global warming will threaten flora’s existence."
I could not understand why have you written this, coz i could not find any such statement by the Author. Can you tell me which statement in the passage given by author makes you write this?

I have couple of more points in my mind, i will comment when I come back, right now I gotta go.
see ya

[LouisLin]

Hello~rockybalboa123, thank you that you read my esay.^^ll
The argument said that global warming lead food shortage that deers suffer.
As we know, deers eat plants. In addition, the argument said plant decreased. That is to say, global warming diminished flora's amounts.
It's my thougt. Please comment and I will appreciate it.^^

[rockybalboa123]

I dont think we can make this assumption that you have made in what you wrote.. But I would welcome suggestions from other seniors also.

[belindalimm]

As i see the point, the author's statement is as follow:

Temperature rising leads to ice-melting which causes Arctic deers could not migrate from one place to another in order to get food which are the plants, and then Arctic deers go extinction because of scanty of food.

I don't think we can directly assume temperature rising cause less plants.

What're your opinions?