Topic: The following editorial appeared in the Broomall County Times-Picayune:
The given passage is an editorial in the Broomall County Times explaining why the reauthorization of the Gordon act should be banned. The passage looks quite lucid at first but is filled with assumptions and flaws. The author feels that the Gordon Act is responsible for the current conditions in the Big Dark Swamp and prohibiting the reauthorization of the Gordon Act will contribute to the improvement of such conditions for sure. However the author fails to consider multiple points and hence does not provide satiating points to bolster his argument. The reasons provided by the editor are also not completely convincing for banning the mentioned Act. The following points make it clearer to understand.
Firstly, the author mentions that The Gordon Act does not allow the contruction of roads and cutting of old trees in the swamp but provides the permit to hunting. He considers this as a reason for the decline of the bird population especially the drappled grackle. However, the author ignores to consider that even though there are trees, the Big Dark Swamp is a swamp and may lack habitation of other animals or insects. It is also possible that place might be deficit in treees that are suitable for vegetation and might not provide ample food for the breeding of bird species. The climate and environment are also important factors to be considered for the sustainability of the drapple grackle. Therefore hunting is not the only factor responsible for the scarcity of the population of the grackle. The author should have considered the above points or atleast mentioned the factors that are necessary for the bird to survive in a Swamp area. Had he provided the above data, his point would have been more lucid.
The author makes comparison between a Swamp and a Marsh. He mentions that the a nearby refuge, the Wayne County Marsh habitat, has enacted few new regulations which in term have helped in controlling the decline of the bird population. However, the author fails to realize that he is making a comparison between a marsh and a swamp, both of which are quite dissimilar in the characteristics, environment and supporting habitat. The size and environment and population also differ in the two. Hence the two do not stand a chance for clear comparison. The author should have, instead, picked a point that is similar in the two places, like the population of the drapple grackle or the kind of environment they require. Instead, the focus was on the steps taken by the govenment of the Wayne County to save their grackle population, like ban on hunting, mining, logging etc which might not support the same improvements in the Broomall County Swamp.
Finally, the author feels that it's only the Gordon act that is responsible for the decline of the grackle population and amends to the act is the only way of saving the declining bird population. Other important factors like activities inside the Swamp areas, food requirement by the birds to survive and climatic conditions and the population in the surrounding areas and their cooperation towards sustaining the habitat also matter.
In conclusion, it can be said that, had the author kept the above points in mind while writing the editorial, then the argument would have been much more convincing, coherent and lucid. The premises provided by the author to bolster his claim do not make the argument convincing enough to ban the reauthorization of the Gordon Act and hence might not be put to action.
"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."
Write a response in which you examine the stated and/or unstated assumptions of the argument. Be sure to explain how the argument depends on these assumptions and what the implications are for the argument if the assumptions prove unwarranted.
The given passage is an editorial in the Broomall County Times explaining why the reauthorization of the Gordon act should be banned. The passage looks quite lucid at first but is filled with assumptions and flaws. The author feels that the Gordon Act is responsible for the current conditions in the Big Dark Swamp and prohibiting the reauthorization of the Gordon Act will contribute to the improvement of such conditions for sure. However the author fails to consider multiple points and hence does not provide satiating points to bolster his argument. The reasons provided by the editor are also not completely convincing for banning the mentioned Act. The following points make it clearer to understand.Firstly, the author mentions that The Gordon Act does not allow the contruction of roads and cutting of old trees in the swamp but provides the permit to hunting. He considers this as a reason for the decline of the bird population especially the drappled grackle. However, the author ignores to consider that even though there are trees, the Big Dark Swamp is a swamp and may lack habitation of other animals or insects. It is also possible that place might be deficit in treees that are suitable for vegetation and might not provide ample food for the breeding of bird species. The climate and environment are also important factors to be considered for the sustainability of the drapple grackle. Therefore hunting is not the only factor responsible for the scarcity of the population of the grackle. The author should have considered the above points or atleast mentioned the factors that are necessary for the bird to survive in a Swamp area. Had he provided the above data, his point would have been more lucid.
The author makes comparison between a Swamp and a Marsh. He mentions that the a nearby refuge, the Wayne County Marsh habitat, has enacted few new regulations which in term have helped in controlling the decline of the bird population. However, the author fails to realize that he is making a comparison between a marsh and a swamp, both of which are quite dissimilar in the characteristics, environment and supporting habitat. The size and environment and population also differ in the two. Hence the two do not stand a chance for clear comparison. The author should have, instead, picked a point that is similar in the two places, like the population of the drapple grackle or the kind of environment they require. Instead, the focus was on the steps taken by the govenment of the Wayne County to save their grackle population, like ban on hunting, mining, logging etc which might not support the same improvements in the Broomall County Swamp.
Finally, the author feels that it's only the Gordon act that is responsible for the decline of the grackle population and amends to the act is the only way of saving the declining bird population. Other important factors like activities inside the Swamp areas, food requirement by the birds to survive and climatic conditions and the population in the surrounding areas and their cooperation towards sustaining the habitat also matter.
In conclusion, it can be said that, had the author kept the above points in mind while writing the editorial, then the argument would have been much more convincing, coherent and lucid. The premises provided by the author to bolster his claim do not make the argument convincing enough to ban the reauthorization of the Gordon Act and hence might not be put to action.
No comments:
Post a Comment