■ Directions: You will have 30 minutes to plan and write a critique of an argument presented in the form of a short passage. A critique of any other argument will receive a score of zero. Analyze the line of reasoning in the argument. Be sure to consider what, if any, questionable assumptions underlie the thinking and, if evidence is cited, how well it supports the conclusion.
|
|
|
▶ Topic :
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 least some of the year, for the ice to cover the sea separating the islands, allowing the deer to travel over it. Unfortunately, according to reports from local hunters, the deer populations are declining. Since these reports coincide with recent global warming trends that have caused the sea ice to melt, we can conclude that the purported decline in deer populations is the result of the deer’s being unable to follow their age-old migration patterns across the frozen sea.
Write a response in which you discuss what specific evidence is needed to evaluate the argument and explain how the evidence would weaken or strengthen the argument. |
|
|
▶ Your Answer :
The argument reasons the global warming as the reason for the declining number of arctic deer in Canada. The writer bases the argument on the notion that recent global warming trends are melting the sea separating the islands, hindering deer from traveling between frozen sea to get food as they have been for ages. While this argument seems plausible, the explanation is lacking some logical links and failes to provide sufficient connections between the reasons.
First of all, the writer quotes local hunters’ reports to say the deer populations are declining but this raises an important point whether the hunters are credible sources to estimate or gauge the area’s deer population. It is unclear from the writing whether the hunters have a logical basis for their reports: are they simply saying there are less deer because it has been more difficult to hunt deers as of late? Or do they keep track of the deer’s habitats and are making statistical observation? Without answering this question, it is hard to fully believe that the deer population is on the decline.
In addition the dubiousness of the hunters’ reports, it is unclear whether the melting ice actually prevented the deer from gaining food. After all, the writer is assuming that the deer would have had trouble traveling to different islands to feed on the plants; however, it is not entirely clear whether the deer would have been unable to survive without traveling. After all, the writer does acknowledge that global warming, and this could introduce other possibilities, like the change in temperatures causing some plants to grow on islands that have been previously colder for them to grow.
Even if the deers’ incapability to travel blocked them from getting food, it is unclear whether this would be considered to be the sole reason for the decrease in the deer population. After all, there could be various other reasons for the declining population. The local hunters may have been more active than before. Another possible explanation could be a possible rise in the number of animals that feed on deer, like wolves, in which case the deer population would subsequently decrease.
In conclusion, the writer should provide some proof and further explanation to make the argument stand. There should be further explanation that local hunters are credible sources to assess the deer populations as well as analysis on whether any other factors—such as the change in the food pyramid in the Canadian arctic region—could have caused the dip in the number of deer. The writer should also provide details to say that the melted sea did in fact pose difficulty for the deer to get food as the argument does not address other possibility of deer to get food in a different way. Without providing the evidence or explanation mentioned, the argument would remain a weak one and have some logical fallacies. |
|
이슈보다 더 어려운 것 같습니다... 인트로랑 엔딩 워딩을 다르게 어떻게 매번 쓰는지 ㅠㅠ 시험 치듯 시간 맞추고 써보긴 했는데... 조언 부탁드립니다.
더불어 이 주제로 써보신 분들 계시면... 제가 미스한 굵직한 포인트도 있다면 짚어주시면 감사하겠습니다...