- The dangerously high deer population is reflecting negatively upon the wildlife of Eastern United States.
- Cristol places his thesis where he does because it is after he has presented the facts and before he presents the solution.
- Cristol uses the fact that the deer population is endangering the rest of the ecosystem, namely songbirds, timber, flora, and fauna. He also asserts that successful management methods of the early 20th century, such as the use of wolves and mountain lions are no longer in use due to the fact that they pose harm to the human population.
- The inductive leap that Cristol uses to reach his conclusion is that the problem can easily be fixed. Cristol could have definitely included more evidence to support his conclusion in order to make it stronger.
- To put it into relative terms, the inductive argument of Cristol is weak as it does not add up to a compelling conclusion. It lacks the support and elaboration needed.
Friday, September 21, 2012
Week 5: "Why Bambi Must Go" Inductive Argument
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1: Yes, too many deer means less places for the migratory birds to nest which is bad, obviously.
ReplyDelete2: I think he placed his thesis farther down so he could create sort of a suspense situation where you get drawn into the problem and you want to know more to find out the solution. Because no one wants the “pretty” migratory birds to…….I don’t know exactly whether it would be go extinct or just not settle in that area any longer but neither of those is good.
3: Agreed, the deer have endangered the ecosystem, birds and flora/fauna alike and the old management methods no longer are an option due how close the deer are to human populations.(sadly though cause I like wolves)
4: I agree he could have had more evidence to support his conclusion but even so I still think he did a great job on the essay providing plenty of examples and facts.
5: I don’t completely agree because I do think he had enough examples of the problems, what were causing it and how to fix them or at least make them better to support himself.
I think that he intentionally put the thesis further down in the essay because otherwise it would have been a weak point to start. It's possible many of the readers are not fully aware of the situation, so it was important to build up to a stronger footing to present his thesis.
ReplyDeleteI agree with your fifth point. He provides a lot of evidence to explain the problem, but there isn't enough to support his leap to the conclusion. I think with perhaps another paragraph or so he could've strengthened his argument.
I think overall the author did a decent job explaining his reasoning for how to fix the situation, and how to balance our delicate ecosystem. While the author is desperately lacking in the concluding paragraph on his explaintions of his examples, he does a great job explaining through the rest of the article. I also think he may have placed his thesis so deep into the paper because not many people are aware of the situation so he had to build and understanding and base as to which he could make his arguments.
ReplyDelete