Similarities Between A New Land Of Opportunity And The Last Wilderness

The passages titled, “The Last Wilderness Preserve'' by Kendra Washington and “ A New Land of Opportunity” by Micheal Serillio both accommodate a familiar topic about the continent of Antarctica. However, though both passages contain the same concept, both writers (Kendra Washington and Micheal Serillio) have contrasting opinions on if human action should be permitted in Antarctica. In spite of their disagreement, Micheal Serillio’s passage uses stronger reasoning, various evidence and a preferable explanation as to why Antarctica should be investigated by humans. To begin, Kendra Washington’s passage titled “The Last Wilderness Preserve” claims that “Any human action that would harm Antarctica is a crime against nature and a threat to our

With evidence from the text expressing that “It is illegal to hunt or fish for many kinds of animals, mine for minerals, or drill for oil in Antarctica.” This creates the idea of why many agreements were constructed to keep the land safe. Additionally, another piece of evidence from the text states “There is nothing welcoming about Antarctica, and this may be nature’s way of keeping humans out”. To continue, Washington introduced the counterclaim which states, “Although these restrictions may be removed in the future, most nations have cooperated thus far”. With the rebuttal stating, “If any mineral or oil deposits are discovered, many nations will fight for it”. However, the rebuttal is unsuccessful in supporting the claim, as it goes against the evidence shown in the text. Throughout the text Washington clearly explains how “The Antarctic Treaty” was created in order to protect Antarctica and keep humans elsewhere from it. But, her rebuttal shows how she may have hardly any faith in the Treaty being successful. As the