The Smith Corporation should not be permitted to develop the land that is now part of the Youngtown Wildlife Preserve This sanctuary is essential to the survival of the 300 bird species that live in our area Although only a small percentage of the land wi

Though there are merits to the argument against permitting the development of the Youngtown Wildlife Preserve, the validity of the argument relies upon unwarranted assumptions and flawed logic.

First, it is claimed that the sanctuary is essential for the survival of numerous bird species in the area. Although, that premise may be factual, the proceeding line of reasoning fails to demonstrate how the sanctuary would become inadequate for providing sustenance to the bird-life in the preserve with the development project. Further, only a small percent of the sanctuary will be utilized. There is not enough evidence to support the claim that the entire sanctuary is necessary in order to preserve the three hundred bird species. Perhaps only half of the sanctuary is necessary; perhaps only half of the sanctuary is even occupied by bird species. Therefore, there are limitless assumptions needed in order to form a cogent argument.

Next, it is claimed that the development would have disastrous effects upon the surrounding preservation land, and thus, even if a small area is occupied, the integrity of the entire preserve is vulnerable. However, the supporting evidence is not adequate to bolster this premise. In supporting the claim, it is stated that the developers will construct and operate a hotel on the purchased land. Though, even with the promise of the developers that the development plans will not harm the sanctuary, it cannot guarantee that the sanctuary will not be negatively affected, the claim that the developers will harm the sanctuary is also not made certain. Thus, the argument fails to connect the establishment of a hotel and the detriment of the preserve.

Last, the argument proceeds with the claim that under no consequences would the sale of land benefit the community. This is fallacious. Given the supporting evidence that the tourists to the community are largely drawn by the magnificent bird population, it follows that the tourists may be enticed to stay at a hotel that is near in proximity to the preserve. With the increase of hotel occupants, the local economy is likely to benefit. Local businesses may observe a boost in customers and sales given the influx of bird-watching tourists in the area. Thus, the claim employs false logic. There are consequences in which the construction of the small area of the preserve could benefit the community.

The assumptions made in the argument are not warranted. The premises have potential to form a cogent argument; however, the supporting evidence to these premises is either irrelevant or insufficient. Thus, additional supporting evidence is needed in order to make the case that the Smith Company should not be permitted to develop the land of the Youngtown Wildlife Preserve.