The argument above attributes the decline in the population of deer residing on arctic islands in Canada to global warming. However in the current form this argument is flawed and incomplete. It can be stated as true only if it provides certain evidence in the form of reliable data, statistics and research.
The first major piece of evidence that could strengthen this argument is the confirmation of the decline in the deer population by a source more reliable than 'local hunters'. It is possible that the hunters might have not been able to gauge the trends of these 'migrating' deer accurately, and the deer may have been in some other regions of the island than predicted by these hunters. Would there be a report by a group of biologists studying these deer, stating that the population of these deer is on a decline, could the argument have carried some weightage. In fact it would be reinforced if data citing ...view middle of the document...
Second, that the decline is not because of any other reason. Inordinate hunting, decline in the general health of deer due to a disease spreading amongst them causing increased deaths, lack of proper grazing areas, some calamity in the past years such as a glacier, which in the recent past caused the death of large herds of deer, all these are potential causes for the decline of deer and the argument needs to refute these.
Once the ambiguity of the authors claim has been resolved, the argument needs to show how global warming has affected these deer. It needs to show whether the path followed by these deer through the year is being affected by global warming. It could be the ice melting in the region in the regions along which these deer travel and, it could be specifically melting before they get a chance to cross onto the other islands. Studies should be conducted to show where the deer reside if they cannot migrate from island to island. It needs to show that the food for these deer is insufficient in the region where they are forced to stay.
Additionally, the exact reason for the decline of deer needs to be stated. Is it due to lack of food leading to deaths due to starvation, or is it that the environment has become unfavorable due to global warming. The death, for all we know, could be due to large numbers of deer localizing in a particular are, now that they cannot migrate leading to territorial fights, or deprivation of food causing lack in vitality and affecting the number of infants born, and the survival of these infants. Thus, further specification of the cause of death beyond just stating the general environmental problem of 'global warming', may provide some credibility to the argument.
In summary, the conclusion to the argument is not logical since there is no evidence to support the claims in the argument.The argument may well be true but is not believable, until it gives evidence to fill the large gaps in the argument. Only if it can prove every statement with evidence which may be along the lines of those mentioned above, can it be said to be a solid argument.