It is known that in recent years, industrial pollution has caused the Earth’s ozone
Allowing an increase in the amount of ultraviolet radiation that reaches the Earth’s surface. At the same time, scientists have discovered, the population of a species of salamander that lays its eggs in mountain lakes has declined. Since ultraviolet radiation is known to be damaging to delicate tissues and since salamander eggs have no protective shells, it must be the case that the increase in ultraviolet radiation has damaged many salamander eggs and prevented them from hatching. This process will no doubt cause population declines in other species, just as it has in the salamander species. (not a logical result)

The author concludes that since ultraviolet radiation is known to be damaging to delicate tissues and since salamander eggs have no protective shells, it must be the case that the increase in ultraviolet radiation has damaged many salamander eggs and prevented them from hatching. To support his assumption, he refers to the scientists’ discovery that the population of a species of salamander that lays its eggs in mountain lakes has declined; therefore, the process will no doubt cause population declines in other species, just as it has in the salamander species. However, I do not find the argument convincing because some assumptions on which the recommendations rest are highly questionable. Here are some reasons why.

First of all, there are many, many possible reasons for the decline in the population of salamander. The reasons for the decline might have been anything from the weather change, the environmental pollution to the global warming effects. To make his claim more convincing, the author should provide more reliable information proving that the ultraviolet radiation can be linked to the decline in population of salamander.

Furthermore, the argument is based on the author’s own speculation rather than on the result of a study or government-related information. The author notes that the salamander eggs have no protective shells, leaving their delicate tissues vulnerable to the radiation. But perhaps the eggs have no need for protective shells. The author assumes that because the ultraviolet radiation is known to damage the delicate tissues, it must be damaging the eggs. His hypothesis is a good starting point for further investigation, but he goes too far when he states that the radiation must be damaging the eggs. He is trying to pass his speculative theory off as incontrovertible fact.

In conclusion, the author notes some relevant trends, but oversimplified the full range of trends as well as possibilities which account for the declining in population of salamander. To make his argument more convincing, he should provide more persuasive evidence of a study or government-related information proving his conclusion logically reasoned. Evidently, oversimplification is the main problem makes his conclusion unsound.