According to the explanation, the author proposes that it is the melting of sea ice caused by global warming that results in the decline of the number of Arctic deer. However, unless she offers further additional evidence to strengthen her argument, the conclusion can remain, at best, unwarranted.
To begin with, although some local hunters report that the deer population seems to be decreasing, it doesn’t necessarily mean that deer are really less than before. Clearly, the author assumes that the report by hunters is reliable. However, it is highly possible that hunters don’t tell the truth. With the government to provide subside for them, they can simply lie to the government that the decline of deer makes it difficult for them to hunt enough
…show more content…
Clearly, this conclusion rely on the assumption that global warming has such a great influence on the sea ice that the sea ice connecting individual island completely disappears.
However, it is not often the case. The ice in Arctic has been frozen for thousands of years and accumulate an amazing high thickness. Even though it melts a little, it is still strong enough that deer can travel over it. Thus, the author should make it clear the thickness of the ice as well as whether it can still hold deer to migrate over it.
Finally, nor does the promise that the number of deer is declining and deer are unable to follow their traditional migration happen at the same time means the latter is the cause of the former. However, she may base her conclusion on an oversimplified causal relationship. Very likely, but not necessarily, other possibilities are deliberately ignored as the possible cause. For example, deer may die for lack of enough food. A sudden attack of plague or an upsurge of predator even a bio-invasion can all lead to the descending of deer population. Therefore, without considering other contributors, the author cannot justify her causal analysis in the