Analysis Of Alan Burdick's The Truth About Invasive Species

1008 Words5 Pages

Invasive species are considered by many as universally evil and as having no purpose other than occupying other species’ niches, driving the original population into endangerment and even extinction. This is not the opinion of Alan Burdick, a writer for Discover Magazine. In his article, “The Truth About Invasive Species” (2005), Burdick argues with varying amounts of success that invasive species are not detrimental to the environment in the majority of cases with the exception of small ecosystems, and that these invasive species are, in fact, the future of the Earth. Burdick attempts to build his argument by displaying his knowledge of invasive species and where they have made their homes, by disproving a long-held theory in the scientific …show more content…

Homestead is known for its wide variety of flora and fauna, much of which is non-native. However, Homestead is not the only part of the world affected by invasive species. Burdick emphasizes this by contributing nearly a full paragraph of examples of various invasive species and the effects of their presence in their new habitats, such as “Giant Asian Carp, introduced in the 1970s to control aquatic weeds, leap unsolicited into fishing boats along the Mississippi River” (2). These facts draw attention to the knowledge of the author in the matter of invasive species. This is done before any major evidence of the author’s opinion on these non-native organisms because it establishes the credibility of the author. The volume of information presented in the paragraph containing the previous quote is also helpful in establishing credibility in exposing a wide range of understanding as opposed to having knowledge about one specific ecosystem. Readers are more likely to be convinced of a position if the person trying to convince them has knowledge in one or more …show more content…

Burdick disagrees with Elton about the competition aspect of non-native species interacting with native species and offers the realistic (and proven) alternatives, which include “eating native species… spreading disease among them… [or] altering the environment in such a way that favors themselves” (3). The addition of these examples was made by the author in order to, again, strengthen his credibility, yet it is not effective in placating the audience. The audience who wishes to be convinced of Burdick’s position of the harmless nature of invasive species would prefer to be informed that instead of competing for resources, invasive species coexist with native species. In fact, it can be assumed that many of the readers would rather that these organisms compete than actively harm each other in other