Arctic deer live on islands in Canada's arctic regions. They search for food by moving over ice from island to island during the course of the year. Their habitat is limited to areas warm enough to sustain the plants on which they feed and cold enough, at

The author presents two survival needs of the deer population, and claims that a decrease in the number of deers must have been a result of the hinderance of one of those factors, based only on a possible cause. Additionally, he overlooked other potential factors that might have engendered a similar outcome. Thus the overall argument of the essay is heavily unsubstantiated.

The author first asserts that, since recent trends in global warming coincides with the decline of deer population, it must have been a cause and effect relationship. The logic behind this cause-and-effect is unwarranted and flawed. The author in the beginning have asserted that there are 2 environmental factors that may significantly impact deer population - food and travel. Thus, a decline in population must not immediately be associated with the possibility that they are immobilized. Maybe some severe drought hit nearby places and caused a decrease in food supply. Perhaps the area experienced a decrease in temperature as to burry the place in extra deep snow and ice, which made food inaccessible. It is dangerous to claim that a decrease in population of deers is a direct result of hindering one of their survival needs.

In addition, it is also quite bizarre to associate iceberg melting to an immediate incapability of deer population to follow their age-old migration pattern. Trends in global warming must have made migration more difficult to some extent, but deers might still be able to migrate on narrower ice-roads. The author never provide evidence for how much ice have melted away, nor has he stated exactly how wide of a path is needed to support the deer migration pattern. For instance, maybe all was needed for migration is a 4 feet road, and global warming has melted 40 feet of the 400 feet ice-road. Hence it is unsubstantiated to associate iceberg melting to an immediate isolation of the deer population on an island.

Finally, we must never overlook other potential causes for the decline of deer population. Maybe a shipwreck close by led to water and air pollution, which poisoned and killed all animals. Perhaps hunters recently were short on money and have been overhunting the deer population. Again, it is unsubstantiated for the author to claim that the decrease in deer population is directly due to their inability to travel.

The author assumed a direct cause and effect for the decrease in deer population to be the result of the potential damage of just one of their survival needs. Then the author proceeds to argue that this potential damage have completely incapacitated the deer population to perform any migration pattern at all, which is vacuously not true. Finally, he might have overlooked other factors that could potentially led to a similar outcome. Thus, the arguments presented here are beautifully implausible.