Argument Essay: The following appears in a letter to the editor for the West Lansburg News

The following appears in a letter to the editor for the West Lansburg News:
"The tufted groundhog lives in the coastal wetlands of West Lansburg. Ancient records suggest that the tufted groundhog once numbered in the millions. Since they were declared a wildlife sanctuary in 2004, development along the coastal wetlands has been prohibited. Now local development interests are lobbying for the West Lansburg council to allow an access road to be built along the edge of wetlands. Neighboring Eastern Carpenteria, which had a similar sanctuary, has seen its sea otter population decline since the repeal of its sanctuary status in 1978. In order to preserve the region's biodiversity and ensure a healthy environment, the West Lansburg council should not allow the road to be built."

The author suggests that the development of a road in the edge of the wetlands of Western Lansburg should not be allowed by the council due to multiple reasons. The author supports his argument by giving multiple reasons which are not complete and cohesive and hence leave the argument doubtful and do not make the author's point lucid. The following are few of the points where the author's argument is flawed and is filled with doubts. 

The author compares the conditions in the West Lansburg to those in the neighboring Carpenteria region where a similar construction activity caused in a decline in the populaion of sea otters in that sanctury. However, the author misses out on the fact that the two areas can vary in multiple aspects like size, land area, otter population and steps to preserve the otter in the sanctuary. The author makes an analogy between two different places which vary in multiple aspects and hence do not support his point of argument. Had the author provided some statistical data about the two regions or mentioned that the neighboring land of Eastern Carpenteria is similar in the above mentioned characteristics, then the comparison would have given a stronger justification. 

Secondly, the author also gives a rough statistics of the population of the groundhog numbering to roughly some millions in 2004 since they were declared a sanctuary and is skeptical about the development of roads since he feels that this activity miht cause a decline in the groundhog population. But the author fails to understand that not only the development activity but other reasons can also affect the decline in population. For example, death, lesser reproduction, improper climatic conditions, unsupportive environmental conditions, hunting and poaching etc, can also be reasons for the reduction in number. Development of a road in the edge of the wetand might not be a strong enough reason for the decline even if it might count as a minor one. 

The region's biodiversity and healthy environment are also points that the author provides for declining the construction of the road along the wetland. However, the biodiversity can be maintained by maintaining a healthy environment, by reducting deforestation and increasing greenary around the environment. This would also help the wildlife to grow and keep the air clean and healthy. The contruction of a road would make communication and transportation easier for the locals and would help them in better ways. The author should have hence supported his reasoning with examples like maintaining the forest lifestyle and natural fauna, or trying to build a road in the perimeters of the coastal wetlands would have been a better option for the government. 

Therefore, in conclusion I would say that, the author's argument is filled with flaws and incomplete and incogent reasons. Had the author kept the above suggestions and points in mind, his argument would have been bolstered much better with valid facts, evidences or statistics. The argument would also be more convincing and well-reasoned.