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

In the argument, the author suggests that the purported decline in deer populations in Canada’s arctic regions is due to the reason that the deers are unable to follow their migration patterns across the frozen sea. At first glance, the argument sounds persuasive; however, the lack of specific evidence leads me to conclude that this argument is flawed on many grounds.

First, the author needs to provide the solid evidence to corroborate that the reports from local hunters can be taken at face value. Since the reports are from local hunters, not from credible sources such as national research centers or research of scholars, it may be biased. It is likely that the local hunters made the populations less to attain more subsidies from the government. Even if the reports are not biased, since the author does not provide exact number of the populations, it is hard to conclude that the decrease was crucial. It is possible that the number of the decrease can be minute, and in this case, we can ignore the decrease.

Secondly, the author needs to supplement the argument with more specific evidence on the relationship between the decrease and the global warming. The author insists that since the reports coincide with recent global warming trends, the decline is due to the global warming. However, coincide is perspicuously different from the causal relationship, and in this line of thought, recent global warming cannot be the main reason if there is no crucial evidence to withstand the causal relationship. Moreover, the plants that the arctic deer live on can be flourished due to the high temperature, it is even possible that global warming reaped benefits for the deer. Therefore, without more information regarding the causal relationship, the author cannot suggest that the global warming led the decline.

Last but not least, more substantial evidence is necessary to cogently conclude that the decline is the result of the deer’s being unable to migrate across the sea. Since the deer is only a part of the nation and the environmental system is complicated, there can be more crucial factors that affected the population of the deer such as their predators or their food sources. For example, if the populations of their predators, such as big mammals, have been increased, the population of the deer must be declined since the predators killed more deers than the past. In other case, it is also plausible that there was a disease among plants that they live on. The deer could have hard time to find their food and their populations can be decreased. Therefore, without ruling out other compelling factors that can contribute to the decline, the reason for the decline cannot be concluded.

In brief, the argument is unsound in many respects. In order to bolster the argument, the author should offer more compelling information on the credibility of the reports, the causal relationship between the global warming, and the other factors that can affect to the populations of the deer.