GRE

[Maitrayee]

ARGUMENT ESSAY TOPIC

The following editorial appeared in the Broomall County Times-Picayune:

"The Gordon Act, which established a wildlife refuge in the Big Dark Swamp, is currently up for reauthorization. The act prohibits the building of roads or cutting of old growth trees in the swamp, though it permits hunting. Many blamed logging activities for the decline of the bird population, especially that of the dappled grackle. The grackle population has continued to decline since the passage of the law, demonstrating that the Gordon Act has not been sufficient to protect the species. Another nearby refuge, the Wayne County Marsh Habitat, bans all mining, logging, and hunting. Wayne County officials have not reported a decline in the grackle population there. This proves that hunting, not logging, was responsible for the population drop in Broomall County. Thus, Broomall County should not reauthorize the Gordon Act unless it is amended to include the same provisions as those in Wayne County."

 

Answer :

The argument  states that the Gordon Act has been insufficient and futile in saving the wildlife. In order to prove his stand, the author has demonstrated two examples: the gradual decline of wildlife in Big Dark Swamp and also comparing with Wayne County Marsh Habitat. However in my opinion, the argument presented stands on some assumptions that have not been examined properly. If these assumptions are carefully taken into account, the argument may be strengthened or weakened. So in the first place, the unstated assumptions must be examined thoroughly.

            The very first thing that is missing in the argument provided is that it does not state all the clauses and sub clauses of the Gordon Act. It is assumed that all is aware of even the smallest details of the Act. This is not necessarily true. Unless the minute details of the Act are provided and investigated deeply, it cannot be said that the said Act is useless.

            Next the author has said that the Gordon Act prohibits the cutting of trees but it permits hunting. But he does not present any proof of his claim that the Act permits hunting. If it at all gives such a permission,then where is the written clause? Nothing has been mentioned in this regard. Also it does not mention what are the animals that are allowed to hunt.

         The author  also states that there is a decline of the bird population in the swamp especially that of the dappled grackle. However the author does not present any statistical record of the number of birds previously in the swamp and presently in the swamp. Had these data been presented to mathematically focus on the declining bird population with special thrust on the case of dappled grackle, the argument would have stood on a more firm footing.

           The author compares that the grackle population has not declined in Wayne County Marsh Habitat as mining, logging and hunting are banned. However the lack of data showing the past and present number of the grackle population in Wayne County Marsh Habitat and juxtaposing with the data of the Big Dark Swamp has not been presented. Had this comparison been given, the argument would have been solidified.

            Thus the claim that reauthorisation of the Gordon Act should not be done unless newer provisions be included does not stand on firm basis as it lacks suitable evidences and data. So to make the argument more logical, the author must include the present details of the Gordon Act and the records of bird population in both the counties in present and past years (that is, before the implementation of the Act).  Only then the argument would sound more justified and plausible.