Fed To The Sharks

In order to argue effectively one must gather strong facts to support their point of view. In the case of scientific arguments, examples of convincing evidence could include: studies, scientific observations or statistics regarding the issue being argued. Principles of inference derived from observations can be particularly useful due to them coming out of logical observation.

In order to pose a good argument the person must also consider what the opposition’s points will be and address each of these in turn. The author of the article neglected to address the arguments of the opposing side, which greatly weakened his own argument. The author should have instead used logical facts supported by statistical data, which cannot be argued with.

As for the rising sea levels, which the article’s author argues would increase farmland, according to an article published in the Scientific American Journal, Greenland holds enough ice to raise global sea levels by seven metres (Biello 2008). Seeing as Antarctica contains approximately 90% of the world’s ice, with an average thickness of 2, 133 metres thick. That means it contains enough ice to raise sea levels around the world by about 61 metres (Brain, 2010). This would result in the many major coastal cities like Los Angeles, New York and Miami being completely underwater were all of the Antarctica ice to melt and major problems for them in the case of Greenland melting (Biello 2008). Up to ten percent of the world’s population lives in vulnerable areas less than ten metres above sea level, which equates to about 669, 725, 404 people (Przyborski 2010) As a result, much farmland would actually be lost instead of gained.

Another argument that the author did not back up with scientific evidence was that the increasing temperatures would decrease the number of cold related deaths in the world each year. While they make a logical argument the author failed to support their point properly by neglecting to cite statistical data that would have reinforced his point. In Europe as a whole approximately 200, 000 people die from excess heat annually. This is very insignificant in comparison to the 1.5 million Europeans that die from excess cold, however (Lomborg 2007) . Had the author presented this statistic or another of a similar nature in his article his argument would have been greatly strengthened.

The author’s argument was weakened because they failed to address a major argument that the opposition would almost surely use. This argument would be that global warming would affect or is affecting many plant and animal species already in a negative way. There are already major losses of habitat occurring in the Arctic regions, putting pressure on the Arctic Fox, Penguin and Polar Bear populations in particular (Naik 2010). The change in temperature would also not only affect the animal species but also the plants because as a result of warmer ocean temperatures storms will become more severe, as well as floods and droughts as precipitation patterns change (Przyborski 2010).

Creating a good argument takes a lot of time and patience, but is worth it if you can convince the opposition to agree with you. Inductive reasoning is a useful tool in creating points that will stand up to the scrutiny of the opposition. A good argument must always address the opposition’s arguments with scientific facts and statistics, for these are useful tools in arguing a case.