c. First and foremost, the authors have used a number of strong propositions to relay the arguments in the article. The use of information that can be confirmed is adequate and sufficient. The authors use information such as climatic conditions whose validity can easily be confirmed by any concerned parties. The authors note, “…Yellowstone’s stable climate means that there are strong and reliable links between predators, prey and plants. By comparison, arid Australia’s climate is dramatically unstable.”(Morgan, Ballard, & Hunter). These are facts that can be confirmed from relevant sources thus making the argument adequate and sufficient (Flage, 2004). However, there some propositions and arguments employed by the authors that I take weak: inadequate and insufficient (Flage, 2004). The proposition that for us to understand the recent excitement about wolves we have to look into events relating to ecology is weak. There may be other way of understanding reasons behind the excitement about wolves. It is more of a generalized statement.
d. The information and arguments presented by the writers of the article are clear. First the central idea of the argument is sufficiently limited to foster a meaningful and productive discussion(Schmoker, 2011). The main topic rotates are wolves and dingoes in relationship to climatic conditions of Australia and Yellowstone and ecological factors and reasoning (Schmoker, 2011). Besides, the central idea has been stated clearly at the beginning and at the end of the article: “Dingoes have often been hailed as a solution to Australia’s threatened species crisis, particularly the extreme extinction rate of the country’s small mammals” is given at the beginning while towards the end of the article, the authors state,” Rather than trying to prove that dingoes in Australia are just as beneficial as wolves in Yellowstone, we should seek to understand the roles that dingoes really play here, and work from there.” (Morgan, Ballard, & Hunter). This is a very great and clear conclusion (Schmoker, 2011). Last but not least, the language used is simple and can easily be understood.
e. First, the argument can be improved by making the main points of the argument be the topic sentences of the main paragraphs. This will enable the reader to easily single out the points of argument from the general elaborations and explanations that come in between the points. Besides, the arguments can be improved by supporting them with documented academic facts or study whose source is credible and reliable. Supporting the arguments enables the reader to confirm the validity of the arguments and credibility of the sources of information. In brevity, the argument could be strengthened by employing claim-evidence approach. A claim is given and credible and reliable evidence offered.
f. The authors recommend that experiments be conducted to comprehend the roles of dingoes and effects of managing them. The experiment will eradicate the fruitless proofs that has been presented concerning dingoes in Australia being as useful as wolves in Yellowstone.
a. The article is about controversial effectiveness of using dingoes to save Australian small mammals from destruction by other animals that prey on them(Morgan, Ballard, & Hunter). The authors present an argument against the claim that the dingoes are the protector of the Australian ecosystem (Morgan, Ballard, & Hunter). The authors argue that the conclusion is a guess based on the reintroductions of wolves in the Yellowstone and the effect might not be the same because of difference in climatic conditions of the two regions: Yellowstone and Australia (Morgan, Ballard, & Hunter). The writers end their argument by calling upon the players to carry out an experiment to ascertain the role that dingoes will play in Australia (Morgan, Ballard, & Hunter).
b. The article is very significant to the society, researchers and to me as an individual(Morgan, Ballard, & Hunter). The article provides a platform to bridge the gap of uncertainty that lies behind the use of dingoes as away protecting the Australian ecosystem (Croswel, 2014). As it seems by the arguments presented by both sides, the two ideologies have their own significant points that cannot be overlooked. Consequently, article prompts more research hence preventing any grievous outcome that could result from reliance on partial information about the effect of using dingoes to protect the Australian ecosystem (Morgan, Ballard, & Hunter). Besides, to the researchers, the article prompts further research in the area hence expanding the information available on the subject. Since there exists a big rift between the two arguments, researchers find a ground to carry out more study in the area so as to bridge the gap. Further research not only expands the knowledge in society but also enhances the quality of the education (Croswel, 2014).
c. Are dingoes the solution to the protection of Australian ecosystem? Has the reintroduction of wolves in Yellowstone reversed the trophic cascade?(Croswel, 2014) How does the difference in climatic condition Australia and Yellowstone relate to relationship between wolves and dingoes to the ecosystem? What is the effect of climate to the relationship between predators, prey and plants? Is more research required to understand the role dingoes play in Australian ecosystem based on climatic condition? What is the similarities and differences between how wolves and dingoes relate to the ecosystem? What are the required condition to achieve the same results in the ecosystem? (Morgan, Ballard, & Hunter).
Part 3
Introduction of dingo in the Australia ecosystem brings conflict of interest. Inasmuch dingoes were introduced to bring a balance in the ecosystem. There are a number of negative effects that comes with the same. There has been a number of complaints from the farmers. Despite the several complaints, not all stock loss cases are reported. For instance, a farmer in NSW, bordering a national park has been suffering annual stock losses due to dingoes (Morgan, Ballard, & Hunter). This case, though not the only case, shows clearly how the introduction of dingoes is a conflict of interest. Why should dingoes introduced in the ecology to bring a balance in the ecosystem wreak havoc in the very ecosystem? This is a total conflict of interest. The main benefit that was expected to be got from the introduction of dingoes in the Australian ecosystem was elimination of widespread foxes that were causing discomfort to the farmers (Morgan, Ballard, & Hunter). Thus dingoes turning against very farmers they were to protect is a conflict of interest.
Consequently, I do concur with the others that introduction of dingoes in the Australian ecosystem should be looked into. More study should be done to prevent the havoc that has been created by dingoes among the farmers.
References
Argumentative Techniques. (n.d.). Retrieved 4 30, 2017, from http://www.lirvin.net/WGuides/argue.htm
Croswel, J. W. (2014). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches. Carlifornia: SAGE Publications.
Flage, D. (2004). Arguments Part II. New Jersey: Pearson/Prentice Hall.
Morgan, H., Ballard, G., & Hunter, J. T. (n.d.). A wolf in dogs’ clothing? Why dingoes may not be Australian wildlife’s saviours. Retrieved April 30, 2017, from https://theconversation.com/a-wolf-in-dogs-clothing-why-dingoes-may-not-be-australian-wildlifes-saviours-72185
Schmoker, M. (2011). Books. Retrieved from ASCD: http://www.ascd.org/publications/books/110016/chapters/The-Importance-of-Simplicity,-Clarity,-and-Priority.aspx
Smallwood, K. (2013, April 29). Top 10 Argument Techniques (That Ruin Arguments For Everyone) . Retrieved 4 30, 2017, from http://www.toptenz.net/top-10-argument-techniques-that-ruin-arguments-for-everyone.php
