Arctic deer live on islands in Canada's arctic regions. They search for food by moving over ice from island to island during the course of the year. Their habitat is limited to areas warm enough to sustain the plants on which they feed and cold enough, at

The author ties the reduction of the population of the arctic deer with the global warming. Relying on the hunter’s report, the author deduces that the deer population is on a decline. Furthermore, the author reasons that migration pattern _ that provides deer more sources of food - is diminished because the surface ice is melted and deer cannot migrate from one island to the other via walking on ice to find sufficient food. However, the author needs to incorporate firm evidence into the argument.

To begin with, the author needs to provide firm evidence on the reduction of the deer population which is scientifically and statistically reliable. Merely citing a decline in the population of the deer by the local hunters does not suffice to prove the decline. The hunters might have ulterior motivations to say that the deer population is reducing. Since the report can be dissuasive to the other hunters to come to Canada’s arctic region, the report is prone to be manipulated.

Secondly, the author needs direct evidence attesting that global warming and decrease of the deer population is firmly related, otherwise, it might be just a coincidence. It is possible that despite the global warming, the local migration routes of the deer remained intact as the local temperature is still not changed notably. Even if the weather in the arctic zones of the Canada is getting warmer, as mentioned in the argument, it can give rise to more food. The supply of food may increase very much that obviates the need of any migration for the search of food and each island might have plenty of the food. Then, starvation would be a far-fetched scenario for the reduction of the arctic deer.

Finally, it needs to be evinced that whether other causes made this reduction happen. As the argument lack enough evidence related to the health situation of the deer, they might develop an illness which is threatening their life not any starvation. It is possible that excessive hunts of the deer whether by humans or carnivorous animals has led to such results. A polluted environment might poisoned the deer. A Genetic defects might have affected their reproduction and so on. We need to know that none of alternative causes were not significantly involved in the reduction of the population of the deer.

In short, as it is discussed, the author makes the argument out of leap of faith, weak reasoning, and insufficient evidence. This has rendered the argument imbued with vague points. Therefore, the conclusion which is based on such an inconclusive argument cannot be tenable.