Argument Topic: 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 w

Wild life sanctuaries are a pride of national heritage. They are the very valuable natural resources the nation posses. Preserving the sanctuary is of utmost importance today due to many reasons. Sanctuary is a place where you find a variety of flora and fauna. They are necessary to face the crisis of global warming. Global warming can cause mass destruction, hence, in order to protect earth we need to conserve plants. This can be achieved through sanctuary. Also, species of plants and animals naive to a particular country are nearing extinction. In order to save them we have to protect our forests and sanctuaries. But this does not mean that we put a stop to advancement and developments. The author's claim has many lop holes and fallacy in it.

The author mentions that Eastern Carpenteria which had a similar sanctuary, has seen its sea otter population decline since the repeal of its sanctuary status in 1978. But that is a high possibility that the decline in the number of sea otter was due to other reasons namely global warming. There is also a possibility that changes in sea temperature has lead to the decline in population. The sea bed undergoes changes over a period of time. This could have lead to the decline in sea otter population.

The author also claims that building roads would hamper region's biodiversity and healthy environment. But the author fails to mention how would it hamper the natural environment. Also, by building roads the government might take more interest in preserving the groundhog.

The date of the article is missing. This is useful because the author mentions about the condition of Eastern Carpenteria back in 1978. If the letter dates today then a span of 36 years have passed. People have today become more aware of the consequences of wild life destruction. The author can nowhere compare 1978 to 2014. Lot has changed between the span of 35 years. Hence, the author needs to be more precised as to what era is he writing the letter.

Thus, the author's claim is full of flaws. One cannot stop the development of a region based on the assumption that the region will suffer the same consequence that some other region suffered. If the author would have provided with more data then the authenticity of the above data could have been considered.