The following appears in a letter to the editor for the West Lansburg News:
"The tufted groundhog lives in the coastal wetlands of West Lansburg. Ancient records suggest that the tufted groundhog once numbered in the millions. Since they were declared a wildlife sanctuary in 2004, development along the coastal wetlands has been prohibited. Now local development interests are lobbying for the West Lansburg council to allow an access road to be built along the edge of wetlands. Neighboring Eastern Carpenteria, which had a similar sanctuary, has seen its sea otter population decline since the repeal of its sanctuary status in 1978. In order to preserve the region's biodiversity and ensure a healthy environment, the West Lansburg council should not allow the road to be built."


Submission:

The op-ed in the major daily has proposed the rationale that the development of the access road along the edge of the wetland would be pernicious and would lead to the destruction of the region's biodiversity. The spurious content of the column however fails to take into account several assumption on which it has based it's conclusion. The following assumptions are needed to be plugged to bolster the conclusion of the column.

On the prima facie the argument mentions that an analogous decline in the otter population of the neighbouring Eastern Carpenteria was observed after the status of sanctuary was repealed. However the argument has failed to cite any specific reasons that led to the decline of the otter populations. Any infrastructure development in the eastern area has also not been cited, which might have caused the deprecation in the otter population. The column could have strengthened its conclusion if any industrial development was cited which led to the decrease in the population of the species of otters on the Eastern part.

Secondly the column specifically mentions the the part of the coastal wetland is a wild life sanctuary, and with any rare forest reserve, there are abundance of environmental litigation and environmental protective measure that need to be conferred with before starting the industrial project. The argument has failed to mention any environmental protection measures that will be taken by the local development authorities to protect the contiguous wetland parcel. The development authorities will be vindicated if the environmental protective measures are deemed adequate in view of the population of the tufted groundhog. However the argument fails to comment upon the inadequacy of the environmental protective measures that will be taken by the local development parties before. The argument could have been cogent if there was a citation regarding the inadequacy or lack there of the environmental protective measures by the local development parties.

Thirdly the argument has not expressed any concern about the decline of the tufted groundhog population that was once abundant. The diminishing groundhog population has been associated with the civilzation growth and development from ancient to current day, without rationally refuting or rebroaching any possiblity of the ground hog migration to a different environment. The migratory nature of the siberian birds in Russian during December cannot be equated with the advent of christmas eve. The exact reason for the decline in population of ground hog needs to be studied and cited in the passage to relate the dimishing nature of the population with the ongoing development. Such an additional rationale could have strengthened the argument.

In the light of the above mentioned points, it is evident that the column in the West Lansburg news lacked some logic which needs to be filled. Conclusive assessment of the decline of the ancient population, otter population in eastern area and full report of the inadequacy of protective measures by authorities can bolster the argument.