|← Self-Evaluation||Shang Dynasty →|
The conclusion in this prompt, obviously made by the Broomall County Times-Picayune editor, is that the decline in the population of the birds, more so the population of the dappled grackle, in the Broomall County was due to the hunting rather than logging activities as it had been though earlier. The premise made in this prompt is that the dappled grackle’s population went on dropping despite the enactment of the Gordon Act that was meant to guard against the drop. Conversely to the Broomall County’s situation a neighboring county, burns hunting, mining and logging in its bird’s habitat or refuge the, Wayne County Marsh Habitat, and has not reported any decline in its population of the grackle birds. This premise gives a good foundation to support the argument presented in the prompt leading to the given conclusion despite the existence of some unfounded assumptions. As such the argument this editor is postulating is that the Gordon Act ought not to be reauthorized by the Broomall County authorities before it is amended to accommodate provision which are similar to those provided by the Wayne County. This means that the Gordon Act which allows hunting should be changed to ban hunting besides logging and mining. Certainly, there are flaws that exist in this argument that indicate that it is not well though out.
In the first place, the argument is based on the assumption that the provision that the Gordon Act are not enough to adequately guard the birds species in the Big Dark Swamp. The assumption fails to yield any evidence asserting that since coming into force of the Gordon Act, it has been enforced properly thus guarding the Big Dark Swamp against an illegal logging activities and as such no activities of this nature have been experienced in the swamp. If evidence is provided indicating then logging activities are still illegally conducted within Big Dark Swamp, then it would be true that logging is indeed the cause of the decline in the population of birds in the swamp. In this regard, the provisions in the Gordon Act are not responsible for the downward trend of the population but its is the implementation part that is lucking and even new provisions ware adopted form the Wayne’s County provision’s the drop would still be expected if the implementation is poorly done as is the case with the current act.
The second flow in the premise leading to this argument and conclusion is that there is no data suggesting that a large number of birds were lost to hunting. In addition to this, it is worth noting that permitting hunting or burning it integral would not have any positive effect towards the increase in the population of the birds is the people in the county are interested in the hunting and killing of these birds.
The third flaw is the luck of evidence showing that the two counties the Broomall County and Wayne County, share feature or are comparable. For instance, there could be an abundance of the grackle birds in the Wayne County. Also the Wayne County may have enforced its burn on logging properly than the Broomall County did. Obviously the Broomall County should not adopt some of the provision provided by the Wayne County unless proper evidence is provided indicating that the two counties similar to one another and or data on birds’ conservation is comparable.
In conclusion, the argument is flawed unless evidence if provided to support all the assumptions made by the editor. This argument could be more valid if there was adequate evidence that indeed hunting has been responsible for the decline of the population of the birds in the Broomall County’s swamp. The evidence should also indicate that no more logging has taken place in the county since the enactment of the Gordon Act. Lastly, there should be evidence indicating that the two counties share similarities that can enable policies applied in one county to be applicable to the other county.