Argument Topic The following appeared as part of a petition sent to residents of Youngtown by an environmental protection group The Smith Corporation should not be permitted to develop the land that is now part of the Youngtown Wildlife Preserve The sanct

In today's world where we are striving to preserve our green lands like the forests, grass lands and sanctuaries; where every NGO, Social Media is leaving no stone unturned to urge the people for undertaking tree implantation, reading the argument at the first glance might seem plausible. However, a careful look into the matter will discovers various loop holes because the author fails to mention certain vital points to buttress the argument. The following flaws are found in the argument:

Firstly, as stated, the article was send as a part of the petition to the residents of Youngtown by an environmental protection group. However, this doesn't define a proper source of the article and terms it dubious. The article is said to be a part of a petition and no information has been given regarding the remaining part of the petition. The name of the environmental protection group is also missing. We could have relied on the information had it been from a reputed environmental protection group. Nevertheless, since the name of the group itself is missing, questioning the groups fame and credibility would not make sense.

Secondly, the argument states that Smith Corporation wants only a 'small percentage' of the land occupied by the entire wildlife preserve. These terms are often misguiding since they don't present the accurate statistics. The author should have averred the total area of the preserve and along with that the area which the corporation plans to purchase. Without these exact figures, we cannot move further with the matter and draw upon a conclusion.

Also the environmental group is just too skeptical about the notion that the encroachment on the wildlife land will have disastrous consequences and doesn't have any concrete fact or information. The article is just underscoring one single statement i:e 'the corporation will destroy the habitat' but how? For example, they should have mentioned about the various ways through which the corporation might destroy the current life. On the contrary, Smith corporation has even promised to ensure the preservation of the sanctuary.

Finally, the greatest flaw emerges at the end of the argument. The article clearly states that the corporation is planning to build a small hotel on a land and not a chemical factory or any pollution causing business. The group also claims that the sale won't benefit the community which relies on tourists who visit for bird watching. In my opinion, the sale will be in fact beneficial. By establishing a hotel, there will automatically be a rise in the number of tourists. The tourist will prefer to stay for a longer period and at the end of the day, the community will be benefited.

Thus, due to the overstated flaws, the argument seems to be ill-founded and implausible. However, had the author mentioned the above vital points, then the argument would have been infallible. But as of now, the authenticity of the argument falls flat due to the insufficiency of data provided.