After reading "Let the Gray Wolf Roam Free" on pg 344, look at the "Methods of Finding Causes" on pg 129. Which method does the editorial use and why? Is it effective in this argument?
The author seems to use the concomitant variation method. The author states many facts like, "The environmental impact statement forecast a loss of 40 to 50 sheep," The author also seems to use other methods in which the arguement is developed. The author uses varient opinions as well to develope a well rounded and strong arguement.
I agree that the author used the concomitant variation. She used it to state scientific facts that are supported and proven. She also uses other methods such as the common factor method to show circumstances of each cause and effect of each possible outcome. I felt that the methods were effective in this argument.
“Let the Gray Wolf Roam Free” is kind of hard to distinguish which type of method it is. I think it is between the common factor method and the concomitant variation. I think it contains elements of both. For example, it could be the common factor method because the cause-and-effect relationship occurs more than once. For example, it doesn’t always have to be the wolves killing off the livestock; it could also be other animals that live within Yellowstone. Of course, some may be wolves, but how do you know for sure. The ranchers seem to believe it is mostly, of not just the wolves. Where as biologists think the matter is improving. The wolves are killing less and the ranchers don’t agree. It may be concomitant variation because an investigator (ranchers) finds a possible cause and a possible effect have a similar pattern of variation. So no one knows for sure that all these livestock deaths occur from wolves, but that is their belief. Ranchers believe that the wolves are the main culprits. In the argument I understand both sides. But, the gray wolf has a right to exist in their natural habitat. Yes, of course ranchers have the right too and are maintaining their cattle, but who is right in all of this? In the argument I like how they propose and explain all sides and that’s what makes it effective in my eyes. The fact that it isn’t negatively bias or putting down anyone’s ideas is a good thing.
The method the author seems to use the most is concomitant variation. The author states facts about the loss of sheep and cattle and supports them. The author shows how the claims being made by the ranchers where proven wrong and uses facts to show the outcome. The author uses other methods to help prove the point they're trying to make.
I think the editorial uses the concomitant variation method. The author used statistics and facts to support his/her claim that the reintroduction of wolves to Yellowstone has been a success. And the evidence pointed in the direction that the reintroduction was a success. I think the method was effective in this argument because the argument came across as strong.
I think that the author uses the concomitant method to build an effective argument. The author used stats to make and prove her claim that the ranchers were wrong about the outcome that wolves would have, if they were reintroduced into Yellowstone.
This article would probably best fit into the category of concomitant variation. The only clear example of this (that I could find) was in paragraph six when they quote the livestock mortality rates in Wyoming and Montana. Using this piece of evidence, the author attempts to point out the poor logic that the farmers use when saying that wolves are killing their livestock.
This method of argumentation allows the author to state several facts to support their case, but still manages to point out opposing views (and in this case, their faults).
I found the argument somewhat effective, but this is a perfect example of an argument that fails to be solid because of how dry the article is. I started reading the article feeling ambivelent about wolves in Yellowstone, and I finished it feeling the same. This article failed to engage the reader...well, for me at least.
The author uses concometant variation argument. She use the argument to show that there was not much of a relationship with the story of the wolves killing livestock, but there was a relationship with the wolves helping the elk population. I did not think it was effective because the wolves still killed livestock, and even though the author didn’t think that 83 sheep and 8 cattle lost was a big deal, but to the ranchers , they don’t want to loose any livestock, so that is why they don’t want the wolves there and that is the reason for the ranchers argument, and I think the author did a poor job in countering the ranchers argument.
I think the author uses both the single difference method and concomitant variation in the editorial. He uses concomitant variation when he talks about enlargement of the wolf population. He says the population started at 31 wolfs and is now at 160. He implies that the increase in wolf population is due to them being in Yellowstone. The uses the single difference method when talking about livestock loses. At first no wolves were in Yellowstone therefore no livestock were killed. But now livestock occasionally get killed. He uses this arguement because not as much livestock is dying as predicted. That is implying that the wolves are not a problem. Both of his methods work well in his argument.
In "Let the Gray Wolf Roam Free", the author uses concomitant variation to tie together that the relocation of the gray wolf could be responsible for the death of live stock. This was a a smart choice on the author's part because it shows that the possible cause and possible effects of the attacks have a relationship. To admit this helps her agrument in showing the possible opposition to her argument, but she is able to spin it to make it only beneficial to her agrument.
i think the author uses concomitant variation method, because of the use of facts and the investigation on the loss of sheep. i think concomitant variation method helps provide ethos because there is facts.
I think that the author uses the concomitant method to find the cause. I think that the main reason for this lies in the fact that the main argument in this argument lies in the cause and effect that the gray wolves bring to Yellowstone. The argument is not effective for me. The author does not really even mention anything opposed to their stance. The entire argument (in my opinion) is not really an argument, rather an extended statement. I don’t believe I can find a clear thesis in the argument either.
The author tends to use the concomitant method in this essay. This is so because of the facts and the evidence used to support the author's claim. Because of the way the author used this method, it made the essay that much more effective to the insight.
13 comments:
The author seems to use the concomitant variation method. The author states many facts like, "The environmental impact statement forecast a loss of 40 to 50 sheep," The author also seems to use other methods in which the arguement is developed. The author uses varient opinions as well to develope a well rounded and strong arguement.
I agree that the author used the concomitant variation. She used it to state scientific facts that are supported and proven. She also uses other methods such as the common factor method to show circumstances of each cause and effect of each possible outcome. I felt that the methods were effective in this argument.
“Let the Gray Wolf Roam Free” is kind of hard to distinguish which type of method it is. I think it is between the common factor method and the concomitant variation. I think it contains elements of both.
For example, it could be the common factor method because the cause-and-effect relationship occurs more than once. For example, it doesn’t always have to be the wolves killing off the livestock; it could also be other animals that live within Yellowstone. Of course, some may be wolves, but how do you know for sure. The ranchers seem to believe it is mostly, of not just the wolves. Where as biologists think the matter is improving. The wolves are killing less and the ranchers don’t agree.
It may be concomitant variation because an investigator (ranchers) finds a possible cause and a possible effect have a similar pattern of variation. So no one knows for sure that all these livestock deaths occur from wolves, but that is their belief. Ranchers believe that the wolves are the main culprits.
In the argument I understand both sides. But, the gray wolf has a right to exist in their natural habitat. Yes, of course ranchers have the right too and are maintaining their cattle, but who is right in all of this? In the argument I like how they propose and explain all sides and that’s what makes it effective in my eyes. The fact that it isn’t negatively bias or putting down anyone’s ideas is a good thing.
The method the author seems to use the most is concomitant variation. The author states facts about the loss of sheep and cattle and supports them. The author shows how the claims being made by the ranchers where proven wrong and uses facts to show the outcome. The author uses other methods to help prove the point they're trying to make.
I think the editorial uses the concomitant variation method. The author used statistics and facts to support his/her claim that the reintroduction of wolves to Yellowstone has been a success. And the evidence pointed in the direction that the reintroduction was a success. I think the method was effective in this argument because the argument came across as strong.
I think that the author uses the concomitant method to build an effective argument. The author used stats to make and prove her claim that the ranchers were wrong about the outcome that wolves would have, if they were reintroduced into Yellowstone.
This article would probably best fit into the category of concomitant variation. The only clear example of this (that I could find) was in paragraph six when they quote the livestock mortality rates in Wyoming and Montana. Using this piece of evidence, the author attempts to point out the poor logic that the farmers use when saying that wolves are killing their livestock.
This method of argumentation allows the author to state several facts to support their case, but still manages to point out opposing views (and in this case, their faults).
I found the argument somewhat effective, but this is a perfect example of an argument that fails to be solid because of how dry the article is. I started reading the article feeling ambivelent about wolves in Yellowstone, and I finished it feeling the same. This article failed to engage the reader...well, for me at least.
The author uses concometant variation argument. She use the argument to show that there was not much of a relationship with the story of the wolves killing livestock, but there was a relationship with the wolves helping the elk population. I did not think it was effective because the wolves still killed livestock, and even though the author didn’t think that 83 sheep and 8 cattle lost was a big deal, but to the ranchers , they don’t want to loose any livestock, so that is why they don’t want the wolves there and that is the reason for the ranchers argument, and I think the author did a poor job in countering the ranchers argument.
I think the author uses both the single difference method and concomitant variation in the editorial. He uses concomitant variation when he talks about enlargement of the wolf population. He says the population started at 31 wolfs and is now at 160. He implies that the increase in wolf population is due to them being in Yellowstone. The uses the single difference method when talking about livestock loses. At first no wolves were in Yellowstone therefore no livestock were killed. But now livestock occasionally get killed. He uses this arguement because not as much livestock is dying as predicted. That is implying that the wolves are not a problem. Both of his methods work well in his argument.
In "Let the Gray Wolf Roam Free", the author uses concomitant variation to tie together that the relocation of the gray wolf could be responsible for the death of live stock. This was a a smart choice on the author's part because it shows that the possible cause and possible effects of the attacks have a relationship. To admit this helps her agrument in showing the possible opposition to her argument, but she is able to spin it to make it only beneficial to her agrument.
i think the author uses concomitant variation method, because of the use of facts and the investigation on the loss of sheep. i think concomitant variation method helps provide ethos because there is facts.
I think that the author uses the concomitant method to find the cause. I think that the main reason for this lies in the fact that the main argument in this argument lies in the cause and effect that the gray wolves bring to Yellowstone. The argument is not effective for me. The author does not really even mention anything opposed to their stance. The entire argument (in my opinion) is not really an argument, rather an extended statement. I don’t believe I can find a clear thesis in the argument either.
The author tends to use the concomitant method in this essay. This is so because of the facts and the evidence used to support the author's claim. Because of the way the author used this method, it made the essay that much more effective to the insight.
Post a Comment