The argument was about The Gordon Act failed to protect the population of the dappled grackle, and since the population is decreasing the act must include provisions like Wayne County. The argument is flawed for the following reasons.
Primarily, the author claimed that the population of dappled grackle bird is decreasing because of hunting and continued to decline since the passage of the law. First of all, there is no solid feasible evidence to bolster the argument of the author. For example, the weather might be changed and since the climate is not suitable for the bird they might decline. It is possible that the grackle birds were not hunted at all since they are declining hunters avoid them. It is also possible that because of illegal logging the food and the shelter destroyed and the grackle birds migrating to the Wayne County.
Another claim the author presented that, since the Wayne County prohibited the mining, logging, and hunting, the population of the grackle bird is static. The author does not provide any data to support his claim. It might possible that the grackle birds even does not been there at all or maybe in the county for a certain period of time. Another reason might be possible that because of climate change the grackle birds now proliferate in the county.
The argument is based upon unwarranted reasons and failed to provide any convincing cases that The Gordon Act swap with the Wayne County law. The two-places might be different from each other and hunting might be a source of food for the indigenous people. The author should provide a more pragmatic date to convince readers.
The
argument
was about The Gordon Act failed to protect the
population
of the dappled grackle, and since the
population
is decreasing the act
must
include provisions like Wayne County. The
argument
is flawed
for the following reasons.
Primarily
, the
author
claimed that the
population
of dappled grackle
bird
is decreasing
because
of hunting and continued to decline since the passage of the law.
First of all
, there is no solid feasible evidence to bolster the
argument
of the
author
.
For example
, the weather
might
be
changed
and since the climate is not suitable for the
bird
they
might
decline. It is
possible
that the grackle
birds
were not hunted at all since they are declining hunters avoid them. It is
also
possible
that
because
of illegal logging the food and the shelter
destroyed
and the grackle
birds
migrating to the Wayne County.
Another claim the
author
presented that, since the Wayne County prohibited the mining, logging, and hunting, the
population
of the grackle
bird
is static. The
author
does not provide any data to support his claim. It
might
possible
that the grackle
birds
even does not been there at all or maybe in the county for a certain period of time. Another reason
might
be
possible
that
because
of climate
change
the grackle
birds
now
proliferate in the county.
The
argument
is based
upon unwarranted reasons and failed to provide any convincing cases that The Gordon Act swap with the Wayne County law. The two-places
might
be
different
from each other and hunting
might
be a source of food for the indigenous
people
.
The
author
should provide a more pragmatic date to convince readers.