Monday, October 29, 2007

Argument Analysis 6

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 YosemiteNational 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."

My response:

The author of the letter concludes that the decline in numbers of amphibians worldwide is a clear indication of the cause of global air and water pollution. The author supports his or her claims by referencing two studies on amphibians that were conducted in Yosemite National Park in California. However, the evidences that the author used to buttress his or her claims are based on a number of assumptions of which renders the argument weak.

Firstly, the author references the two studies of amphibians in Yosemite National Park as an evidence to support her argument. However, the author failed to mentioned the significance of the studies in relation to global pollution of air and water at all. The decrease in the numbers of species of amphibians was mentioned, but there is no report on the pollution of Yosemite. The use of the two studies was intentionally misleading,letting the readers think that there is a correlation between the decline in amphibians and air and water pollution.

Even if there is a correlation between the global pollution of water and air with the decline of the numbers of amphibians, the author is unable to convince me that the world's air and water pollution problem is related to the decline in amphibian numbers by referencing studies done only in Yosemite. A study conducted in only in Yosemite is not a sufficient representation of the world's pollution condition. To strengthen the author's claim, the author should present similar studies that were conducted in other places as well with different variables like different climates and so on. Another reason why the author failed to convince me of her argument is the lack of proof that there is a decline of amphibians worldwide. Though there is evidence showing the decline of amphibians in Yosemite, this does not necessarily mean that there is a similar global trend as amphibians could be thriving in other places.

Another flaw in the author's argument is the failure to acknowledge the possibility of other factors in the contribution of global air and water pollution. As mentioned above, studies singularly done in Yosemite is not a sufficient representation of the global pollution worldwide. Global pollution could be caused by many other factors including climate change, industrial development, global population number and so on.

In sum, the argument presented by the author is flawed. The author fails to provide solid evidences to buttress his or her claim. Had the author taken the above factors into consideration, it would have rendered his or her claims irrefutable.

No comments: