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
No, neither argument is sufficient enough to be convincing.
No, neither argument is sufficient enough to be convincing.