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 were d

In this era of 'go-green', a first look at the argument seems quite convincing and anyone will aver that the local organizations should not be granted the permission to build the road thus terming it as logical and valid. However, as we go deep into the matter, we discover that the argument lacks vital evidences and points to put forth its claim. The essential points to strengthen the argument which should have been there are as follows:

The date of the article has not been mentioned and also the author is anonymous. Along with that the credibility of the West Lansburg Newspaper is also lacking. The reason why the above stats are essential is because the argument is referring to a huge span of time ranging from 1978 to 2004 and few more years which is approximately around 25 to 30 years. As a result, the above information is necessary to process the claim further.

The article suggests to disallow the local organizations from being granted the permission. The decline of the sea otter population in the neighbouring Eastern Carpenteria having a 'similar' sanctuary has been stated as the reason. How does the decline in the sea otter population relate to the decline in the number of tufted groundhog? Also, the word 'similar' doesn't mean an 'exact' replica of the West Lansburg sanctuary. Thus, the argument is relying on correlations and not concrete facts.

Moreover, neither the reason behind the decline in the number of groundhog nor that of the sea otter has been mentioned. Its just been said that since there is a decline, further activities must be stopped which sounds too orthodox in nature. The reduction of sea otters and repealing of the sanctuary status in 1978 might also turn out to be a coincident. As a result the author should have mentioned proper reasons to avoid the ambiguity.

Ancient records are suggesting that at one instance there were millions of tufted groundhogs. The argument lacks the current status of the tufted groundhogs. The probability of them being endangered even before the wetland were termed as a sanctuary in 2004 might be high. Thus, there is not particular basis on which the local developments are being denied a permission for building the road.

Finally, the reason behind the construction of the road along the edge of the wetlands is absent. The author must have mentioned the reason behind the construction of the roads to bolster his claim of denying the permission. On the contrary, the road can also turn out to be useful in maintaining the wetlands, for regular cleaning and monitoring purpose, etc.

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