The writer of the argument makes a few overstated assumptions that may cause a hasty decision to be made regarding the West Lansburg wildlife sanctuary. Firstly, it is said that the tufted groundhog, that once numbered in millions, lives in the coastal wetlands which have now been developed into a wildlife sanctuary. Whether the tufted groundhog has been included in the sanctuary is not certain. It is possible that the sanctuary only skirted the places where the groundhogs were, never really taking them in. It is also possible that only a few of them were taken in, and a division like this can cause the groundhog population to decline rather than persist. The worst-case scenario would be if the groundhogs were never taken into the shelter of the sanctuary at all, rendering the whole argument futile.
The next argument states that the local development interests are lobbying for an access road to be built along the edge of the wetlands. This is compared with the neighboring Eastern Carpenteria that had a similar sanctuary before its status was repealed. However, it is not mentioned clearly if it was the development of roads or infrastructures that caused the said status to be revoked. For all we know, it could be the result of internal or external dissents that caused the sanctuary to be shut down, rather than the situation being concerned with any construction at all. The exact reason is not clear and the author has assumed more than what is apparent in the overall situation.
Moreover, after the Eastern Carpenteria's sanctuary status was revoked, the population of sea otters declined in the place. Again, it is assumed that it was the repealing of its sanctuary status that caused this decline. For all we know, it could be external factors such as a ban from hunting being lifted, a fire accident, a disease or something like that which even the sanctuary, if extant, may not have been able to do much about. It is as easy to lose a population to external factors within a sanctuary as outside it. Therefore, comparing it with coastal wetlands is an overstretch.
Furthermore, when the author states that the population of the sea otter declined, he or she has presented no evidence or statistics to the same. The death of one old, graying sea otter in a population of twenty is also regarded as a decline in population. Therefore, until we get specific statistics we cannot be sure if the population of the sea otters declined at all, much less due to the revokement of the sanctuary status of the place they lived in.
Finally, the author states that in order to preserve the region's biodiversity and ensure a healthy environment, the West Lansburg council should not allow the road to be built. Again, the author assumes that the road would cause a nuisance to the sanctuary while it may result in effects as harmless as increasing the number of visitors to the sanctuary. Plus, it may also ease the access of the wetlands to otherwise inaccessible areas such as the back of a tiger's field, which may encourage more cleanliness and health preserved in the area.
In conclusion, the author has stated several assumptions that we need more evidence to claim as true. Till these assumptions are verified, we cannot be certain if the building of the road is indeed unsafe to the animals and the people inside the sanctuary and no decision regarding its construction can be halted.