【big fish】2月27日Argument45---by Jenius

jenius4869UID: 2659821

45.The following appeared as an editorial in a wildlife journal.

"Arctic deer live on islands in Canada's arctic region. They search for food by moving over ice from island to island during the course of a 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 decline in arctic deer populations is the result of deer being unable to follow their age-old migration patterns across the frozen sea."


In this journal, the author concluded that the reported global warming trends currently have resulted in the decrease of deer populations. To support his/her assertion, the author also cites the living condition of the deer in Canada's arctic region and explains that the global warming trends made the deer unable to cross the frozen sea as they used to do. For several logical flaws, I find the argument unconvincing.



To begin with, the fundamental problem with this argument is the causal relationship between global warming and the decrease of deer. Even if the number of the deer does reduce as the local hunters claims, it does not necessarily attribute to the global warming. Maybe the increase of the temperature could not result in the ice of the region where the deer live melt, thus the deer would still be able to cross the frozen river. Or perhaps the decrease of the deer population could be explained by other reasons. For instance, the plants on which they feed could not florish as good as previous time. Or it could be even be the local hunters' fault since they hunt for the deer frequently thus lead to much more death of them. Without ruling out other possible interpretations for the change of the deer population, it is unfair to blame it all to the global warming trends because of mere proximity of time.



Another remarkable point which worth highly suspecting is that the decline of the deer population is alleged by the local hunters rather than statistics-based survey of successive years. In all likelihood there are only a few hunters feel the deer has decreased for the reason they cannot hunt lots of them. Since the author fails to offer confirm evidence to illustrate what the local hunters claim is reliable and the result is conducted in a scientific way, we could mot draw any conclusions of the real situation of the deer population.



Even if the number of the deer does decline, and the sea ice locally has melt, consequently, makes the deer could cross the river. However, the author provide no substantiate evidence to prove that as the melt of the sea ice, the deer would die in a much accelerated speed. It is possible that there may exist other reasons which lead to the consequence while the global warming plays no or less roles in it. Without providing any sufficient reasoning to indicate the direct relationship between these two incidents, the author's conclusion could be taken seriously.



To sum up, the argument is unpersuasive for the fallacies I discussed above. If we want to understand the actual situation of the deer and whether it is associated with global warming, we should do more research work and deep analysis.


459 words