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.

Please feel free to comment. Appreciate any feedback.

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.