GRE Prep Club Daily Prep
Thank you for using the timer - this advanced tool can estimate your performance and suggest more practice questions. We have subscribed you to Daily Prep Questions via email.
Customized
for You
Track
Your Progress
Practice
Pays
Not interested in getting valuable practice questions and articles delivered to your email? No problem, unsubscribe here.
Argument Analysis - Arctic Deer and its Population
[#permalink]
09 Aug 2018, 08:25
09 Aug 2018, 08:25
1
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.
The author concludes that due to Global Warming the ice over the seas in and around Canada is melting and which disrupts the path for the Arctic Deer to cross the sea from island to island in the search of food. Although this argument sounds logical, the author has missed few evidences which can affect the conclusion inadvertently.
The argument states that the local hunters have observed a decrease in population of the Arctic Deer. The author claims that global warming is the reason behind the decreasing population of the Deer. There are a few possible explanations for the hunters to miss judge the count of the Deer. A possibility is that the Deer has found a habitat on a island which is very rich in food and the Deer does not have to travel to any other island in search of food. Another possibility is that the hunting might have affected the population of the Deer. Or the another possibility is the one which the author assumes, that the Deer have died of starvation. All these possibilities will have to be taken into consideration before concluding whether the Deer population has decreased or not.
Also to find the whether there is actually a decrease in Deer population, the author might need to specify the number of Deer which had been sighted before as compared to now along with the time span. If the hunters are comparing the population of Deer 10 years back then the times have changed and the Deer must have generated a new migration pattern.
Notably the author assumes the Deer that the hunters have observed to be shrinking in number is the Arctic Deer. The observation of hunters can be from a part of the region in the Arctic region of Canada. So there is a high probability that the local area from where the hunters are located is experiencing a reducing count of Arctic Deer, but some other parts of the Arctic might be experiencing an increase in the Deer density.
In addition to which the author has also explained the reason of decreasing Deer population by relating it to global warming. This may be just a coincidence and not the real reason, this may restrict the movement of the Deer to a particular area but does not imply that the Deer may lessen in number all over the Arctic.
To summarize things, the author has made a bold argument without taking into account a number of facts and has concluded on the basis of various assumptions discussed above. To firmly conclude about the depleting Deer population one has to check the actual difference in count of Arctic Deer in the whole of the Arctic region. Thus if the count is found to be less, then investigate further to find whether it is due to ice melting or is it due to several other reasons.
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.
The author concludes that due to Global Warming the ice over the seas in and around Canada is melting and which disrupts the path for the Arctic Deer to cross the sea from island to island in the search of food. Although this argument sounds logical, the author has missed few evidences which can affect the conclusion inadvertently.
The argument states that the local hunters have observed a decrease in population of the Arctic Deer. The author claims that global warming is the reason behind the decreasing population of the Deer. There are a few possible explanations for the hunters to miss judge the count of the Deer. A possibility is that the Deer has found a habitat on a island which is very rich in food and the Deer does not have to travel to any other island in search of food. Another possibility is that the hunting might have affected the population of the Deer. Or the another possibility is the one which the author assumes, that the Deer have died of starvation. All these possibilities will have to be taken into consideration before concluding whether the Deer population has decreased or not.
Also to find the whether there is actually a decrease in Deer population, the author might need to specify the number of Deer which had been sighted before as compared to now along with the time span. If the hunters are comparing the population of Deer 10 years back then the times have changed and the Deer must have generated a new migration pattern.
Notably the author assumes the Deer that the hunters have observed to be shrinking in number is the Arctic Deer. The observation of hunters can be from a part of the region in the Arctic region of Canada. So there is a high probability that the local area from where the hunters are located is experiencing a reducing count of Arctic Deer, but some other parts of the Arctic might be experiencing an increase in the Deer density.
In addition to which the author has also explained the reason of decreasing Deer population by relating it to global warming. This may be just a coincidence and not the real reason, this may restrict the movement of the Deer to a particular area but does not imply that the Deer may lessen in number all over the Arctic.
To summarize things, the author has made a bold argument without taking into account a number of facts and has concluded on the basis of various assumptions discussed above. To firmly conclude about the depleting Deer population one has to check the actual difference in count of Arctic Deer in the whole of the Arctic region. Thus if the count is found to be less, then investigate further to find whether it is due to ice melting or is it due to several other reasons.
Re: Argument Analysis - Arctic Deer and its Population
[#permalink]
04 Jun 2019, 12:42
04 Jun 2019, 12:42
My analysis of the argument. Please feel free to comment.
The author claims that recent trends in global warming have caused the arctic ice to melt resulting in a decline in deer populations; as they are unable to move over ice from island to island in search for food. However, the argument does not mention any other factors that might be influencing this decline like reduced food availability or increased number of predators for the deer on the islands. Thus, further evidence is required to completely agree with the author’s argument.
Firstly, the author does not mention if there have been any changes reported in the flora of the islands that are the main food source for the deer. It is possible recent climate changes brought about a decline in the major food source for the deer. Maybe there was a drought and not receiving enough water, the plants dried up or maybe there were too many snowstorms with high winds that destroyed the plants. Moreover, deer are not known to store food like squirrels that they could access in desperate times. Thus, it is plausible that reduced amount of food led to a decline in the deer population.
Secondly, there could have been an increase in the population of deer predators like snow leopards, lions or bears. Deer is a common prey for most carnivorous animals and a rise in their numbers would prove fatal to the deer especially young ones that do not know how to defend themselves properly. Thus, if numbers on the predatory animals for deer are provided and they prove to have surged, then the author’s argument of global warming leading to the deer population decrease falls apart.
Lastly, the author’s argument depends on the reports provided by local hunters. But, how does one trust the authenticity of the local hunters? There is no mention of what methods they utilized to count the deer, is it really a credible way of counting? Moreover, there is no statistical data provided by the author to strengthen his/her claim. The author fails to mention, how many local hunters actually reported the decline and what were the numbers of the deer before and after the reports. Maybe it was only 2 out 20 local hunters who reported the decline. In that case, it would be a very small number to extrapolate the argument on.
In conclusion, if the author provided more information regarding the numbers of predators on the islands, the plant conditions of the deer habitats or the statistical data needed to substantiate the local hunters’ claim, his/her argument could be accepted. But in the absence of the aforementioned evidences, the author’s argument regarding global warming seems inconclusive and unbelievable.
The author claims that recent trends in global warming have caused the arctic ice to melt resulting in a decline in deer populations; as they are unable to move over ice from island to island in search for food. However, the argument does not mention any other factors that might be influencing this decline like reduced food availability or increased number of predators for the deer on the islands. Thus, further evidence is required to completely agree with the author’s argument.
Firstly, the author does not mention if there have been any changes reported in the flora of the islands that are the main food source for the deer. It is possible recent climate changes brought about a decline in the major food source for the deer. Maybe there was a drought and not receiving enough water, the plants dried up or maybe there were too many snowstorms with high winds that destroyed the plants. Moreover, deer are not known to store food like squirrels that they could access in desperate times. Thus, it is plausible that reduced amount of food led to a decline in the deer population.
Secondly, there could have been an increase in the population of deer predators like snow leopards, lions or bears. Deer is a common prey for most carnivorous animals and a rise in their numbers would prove fatal to the deer especially young ones that do not know how to defend themselves properly. Thus, if numbers on the predatory animals for deer are provided and they prove to have surged, then the author’s argument of global warming leading to the deer population decrease falls apart.
Lastly, the author’s argument depends on the reports provided by local hunters. But, how does one trust the authenticity of the local hunters? There is no mention of what methods they utilized to count the deer, is it really a credible way of counting? Moreover, there is no statistical data provided by the author to strengthen his/her claim. The author fails to mention, how many local hunters actually reported the decline and what were the numbers of the deer before and after the reports. Maybe it was only 2 out 20 local hunters who reported the decline. In that case, it would be a very small number to extrapolate the argument on.
In conclusion, if the author provided more information regarding the numbers of predators on the islands, the plant conditions of the deer habitats or the statistical data needed to substantiate the local hunters’ claim, his/her argument could be accepted. But in the absence of the aforementioned evidences, the author’s argument regarding global warming seems inconclusive and unbelievable.
Re: Argument Analysis - Arctic Deer and its Population
[#permalink]
21 Jul 2020, 16:22
21 Jul 2020, 16:22
In the argument at hand, the author concludes that the “purported decline in deer population is the result of the” artic deer’s inability to “follow their age-old migration patterns across the frozen sea.” The author arrives at what he appears to believe is a strong conclusion based on two key points — the artic deer’s dependence on sea ice to thrive and the recent global warming trends. However, before this argument can be deemed cogent from any perspective, it is imperative that three pieces of evidence be scrupulously evaluated.
Firstly, there is no strong evidence supporting the idea that the “purported decline in deer populations” is directly the result of recent global warming trends, as the author states so confidently. There is a strong possibility that it was not the global warming trend but increase in predators or decrease in food resources that led to the decline in deer populations. In fact, the author sets himself up for criticism since even he, himself, declares that the reports “coincide” with warming trends. Coincidence is not proof of evidence. It is simply coincidence. As the apothegm goes, correlation (or coincidence, in this case) does not imply causation by any means. Due to his lack of evidence to prove that the melting ice is a direct cause of deer decline, his argument is sufficiently weakened. In order to strengthen his point, he would need to eliminate all other alternative causes for a population’s decline.
The second piece of evidence that needs to be bolstered is the vagueness of his terminology. In his argument, the author beings by discussing the artic deer who live on “islands in Canada’s artic regions.” By the end of his tirade, he seems to have swapped his information, as he concludes by discussing the “purportedly declin[ing] deer population” in a general sense. Only an insensible reader would be dense enough to believe an author who is not clear about the fundamentals. Given this discrepancy in definitions, one cannot determine whether the decline in deer populations overall may also have included populations of deer that live in forests or in zoos. Without clarifying such points, the author’s points cannot hold water. To increase his credibility, the author should be offering statistical evidence and population trends on a monthly or yearly basis. Such information would help his points of contention to a great degree.
In conclusion, the author’s reasoning as it stands today is severely flawed for the reasons expounded on above. Without further evidence — perhaps in the form of robust research studies, terminology clarification, and historical population trends — it is impossible to evaluate the soundness of his implied call for action to halt global warming. In fact, it is essential that the two claims be answered lest his claim continue to viewed as pure sophistry at best.
Firstly, there is no strong evidence supporting the idea that the “purported decline in deer populations” is directly the result of recent global warming trends, as the author states so confidently. There is a strong possibility that it was not the global warming trend but increase in predators or decrease in food resources that led to the decline in deer populations. In fact, the author sets himself up for criticism since even he, himself, declares that the reports “coincide” with warming trends. Coincidence is not proof of evidence. It is simply coincidence. As the apothegm goes, correlation (or coincidence, in this case) does not imply causation by any means. Due to his lack of evidence to prove that the melting ice is a direct cause of deer decline, his argument is sufficiently weakened. In order to strengthen his point, he would need to eliminate all other alternative causes for a population’s decline.
The second piece of evidence that needs to be bolstered is the vagueness of his terminology. In his argument, the author beings by discussing the artic deer who live on “islands in Canada’s artic regions.” By the end of his tirade, he seems to have swapped his information, as he concludes by discussing the “purportedly declin[ing] deer population” in a general sense. Only an insensible reader would be dense enough to believe an author who is not clear about the fundamentals. Given this discrepancy in definitions, one cannot determine whether the decline in deer populations overall may also have included populations of deer that live in forests or in zoos. Without clarifying such points, the author’s points cannot hold water. To increase his credibility, the author should be offering statistical evidence and population trends on a monthly or yearly basis. Such information would help his points of contention to a great degree.
In conclusion, the author’s reasoning as it stands today is severely flawed for the reasons expounded on above. Without further evidence — perhaps in the form of robust research studies, terminology clarification, and historical population trends — it is impossible to evaluate the soundness of his implied call for action to halt global warming. In fact, it is essential that the two claims be answered lest his claim continue to viewed as pure sophistry at best.
