Use the following two arguments to answer the question.
Argument 1: Federal laws protecting gray wolves should be removed. Many ranchers want to allow hunting wolves again. They point to increased wolf populations in several states. Numbers have grown from under 1,000 to more than 5,000. The increase has led to more wolf attacks on sheep and cattle.
Argument 2: Federal laws protecting gray wolves should stay in place. Conservationists say that current wolf packs and populations are not at all stable. They point to the fact that wolves neared extinction before laws protecting them were enacted. Allowing hunting could eliminate the gains.
Is each argument convincing?
(1 point)
Responses
Argument 2 is convincing, but Argument 1 is not.
Argument 2 is convincing, but Argument 1 is not.
No, neither argument is sufficient enough to be convincing.
No, neither argument is sufficient enough to be convincing.
Yes, both arguments are convincing.
Yes, both arguments are convincing.
Argument 1 is convincing, but Argument 2 is not.
Argument 1 is not convincing because it only focuses on the negative impacts of increased wolf populations on ranchers, without considering the overall ecological benefits of protecting gray wolves. It also fails to provide evidence that removing federal laws would effectively address the issue of wolf attacks on livestock.
Argument 2 is convincing because it acknowledges the historical near extinction of gray wolves and the positive impact of federal laws in protecting and recovering their populations. It also highlights the potential risks of allowing hunting, which could undo the progress made in conservation efforts.
Therefore, the correct answer is: Argument 2 is convincing, but Argument 1 is not.