The Smith Corporation should not be permitted to develop the land that is now part of the Youngtown Wildlife Preserve. This sanctuary is essential to the survival of the 300 bird species that live in our area. Although only a small percentage of the land

In the aforementioned argument, the author claims, that approval should not be given to Smith Corporation to develop a plot of land that is a part of Youngtown wildlife preserve, since it will have disastrous effect on the survival of 300 bird species in that area. At first glance the argument seems legitimate and very convincing. But on further scrutiny of the argument and its underlying structure, a number of flaws become visible, which makes it difficult to support the argument wholeheartedly. The most pivotal shortcomings of the argument is its inability to acknowledge the assumptions made and the lack of support for its claim.

As a matter of first importance, the author of this argument has used hot-button words like endangered species, disastrous which are almost guaranteed to get the desired reaction from the audience. Because smith corporation is using only a small plot of land for development, it is probable, that this plot of land may be far away from the preservation of endangered species. So in no way the development can pose any danger to these preserved species.

Secondly to develop and start a hotel business in Youngtown region would require employing people. Since the local people staying are closest to the hotel, the management is likely to hire local people of the community. This will bring in income for the local people, which in turn can be utilized in the preservation and conservation of wildlife. In addition, establishment of a hotel would mean that there would be more influx of tourist in Youngtown region. This would definitely uplift the economy of the region, which in turn will uplift the people.

The author purports that a hotel development will have disastrous consequences in the area. This is the weakest link in the argument. The author does not state as to how their will be disastrous consequences . Will there be air pollution? Will there be noise pollution? Will there be a problem of garbage disposal?. Had the author stated any of the above mentioned pollution, then it can be considered that hotel development have an negative effect on wildlife preservation. But in the absence of these, it is difficult to determine the veracity of the authors claim.

In essence, the argument in its current state consist of a number of shortcomings , most blatant of which are discussed here. Also, the removal of the vague and exaggerating words should be prohibited to make the argument more sensible.