The following appeared as part of a petition sent to residents of Youngtown by an environmental protection group:"The Smith Corporation should not be permitted to develop the land that is now part of the Youngtown Wildlife Preserve. This sanctuary is esse

The argument mentioned starts with a premise that, no matter what ever precaution is taken, development of a hotel is deleterious to the wildlife sanctuary. But the facts presented in the argument, upon careful observation, suggest otherwise.

The passage tells that sanctuary is essential for survival of 300 bird species, and even though there is only a small percentage of land sold to Smith corporation, it will be having a disastrous consequences. Firstly, the argument seems to be self-contradicting, because of the fact that only a "small portion" of the sanctuary has to be sold, which should have any impact, because the majority of the sanctuary is untouched and still could be abode for the bird species. Also, the passage tells that the company plans to build a small hotel on the land, which means the entire land is not going be utilized for the building. This clearly indicates that the development of the hotel, which is very small in comaprison with the entire area of the sanctuary, is not goign to affect the existing wildlife environment essential for the birds.

It can also be inferred from the passage that Smith Corporation is indeed an environment conscious organization. This is reflected in their promise to ensure the preservationof the sanctuary. This provides a sense of assurance that the hotel would abstain from activities that pose a risk to the wild life sanctuary.

The agrument clearly states that there are tourists coming primarily to see the magnificient bird population. The hotel is aimed at providing accomodation to the tourists, thereby in turn contributing towards the growth of the wild life sanctuary. In addition, the wild life sactuary could be developed with the revenue which is generated because of this defal. Its a quid pro quo, where both the parties are benefitted out of it.

Hence for the reasons cited above, unlike what is mentioned in the argument, this sale is anything but a problem to the wild life sanctuary. Infact, both the wildlife sanctuary and the hotel could be benefitted out of this sale.