ANALYZE AN ARGUMENT:
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.
________________________________________

Recent global warming trends have caused sea ice to melt, which can impede the age-old migration patterns of Arctic deer. In consequence, the deer populations are declining, an observation supported by the reports of local hunters. However, more evidence is needed to evaluate this argument.

First, we need evidence that the decline of the populations is not caused by some other external factors such as overhunting, increased predation, or the introduction of an invasive species, competing with the deer food source. In fact, if there’s an increase in hunting or in activity from their natural predators like wolves, it would be expected that the deer population declines. This would not be an alarming fact. Another natural example that could cause their population decline would be the introduction of an invasive species that competes with the plants that deer feed on, leading to less food availability and a decrease in population. These factors could weaken the argument above.

Secondly, the observation, that deer populations have declined, is based on reports from local hunters, which may not be accurate. It would be unwise to base an argument upon their claims. To strengthen their claims, more evidence of population decline is needed. A government conservation team of scientists should tract the deer population using wildlife tracking monitors, over a long period of time, and apply more rigorous scientific principles, to verify the hunter’s claims. The scientist team’s findings are more reliable than the local hunter’s reports.

Finally, more evidence that shows a direct causation relationship between ice melting, deer migration pattern, and deer population decline is needed. Currently, there is no evidence showing that ice-melting affects deer population migration patterns. Ice-melting may not affect the migration patterns at all; more evidence showing this causation is needed to make this conclusion. There is also no evidence showing the deer population declining when they cannot follow their age-old migration patterns. Perhaps when facing new conditions, deer adapt their behavior and adopt different feeding patterns. These adaptations can prevent their population decline. Showing causation between ice melting, migration pattern disturbance and deer population decline strengthens the argument.

In conclusion, at least three additional pieces of evidence are required to evaluate the current argument. We must eliminate the possibility that other natural factors caused the deer population decline. We must also verify that the population is indeed declining and show that ice-melting disturbs deer migration patterns, which causes their population decline.