The Smith Corporation should not be permitted to develop the land that is now part of the Youngtown Wildlife Preserve. This sanctuary is essential to the survival of the 300 bird species that live in our area."
Graded on 1-6 scale.
Any suggestions and score evaluations would be appreciated.
The argument provided here is flawed due to various reasons. It states that only a 'small' portion of the land is provided for the hotel but how small exactly is it is not clearly specified. Also, the development is said to have 'disastrous' consequences but the argument fails to explain what kind of disastrous effect could be faced by the area. At the same time, the point that the hotel would not benefit the society is also baseless, since a new hotel would obviously create more new jobs. Thus, undermining the argument as a whole
The argument states that only a 'small' portion of the land is being given to build a 'small' hotel. May be the land taken from the sanctuary is really small and won't affect the bird population or their habitat in any way. The argument would have been stronger if it had provided the data and figures regarding the partion of land for the hotel and the bird sanctuary.
The argument also states that the proposed development would have 'disastrous' consequences' on the area but it fails to define how disastrous actually. It does not provide any sort of information as to how exactly a construction of a hotel would affect the bird species living in the sanctuary. The argument would have definitely been stronger if the term 'disastrous' was not so vague and clearly defined how a hotel would affect the sanctuary.
According to the given argument, the bird sanctuary is the reason for tourism, in Youngtown and building a hotel near the bird sanctuary obviously means they want to attract the tourists coming in. Provided that the bird sanctuary is the actual reason why the tourists would be coming into the town and staying in the hotel, there is no way the hotel people would want to destroy or harm the bird sanctuary in any way possible.
Also, if a new hotel is being build in a town then that would mean new jobs for the people of the community. And hence the argument that says that this new hotel would not benefit the society in any way falls flat. The argument would have been stronger had it provided other information regarding how it was not beneficial for the community
Since, the argument falls flat on a lot points, it fails to make a convincing case that the construction of a new hotel would be disastrous for the bird sanctuary as well as the community.