The Arctic National Wildlife Refuge is home to caribou,
moose, musk oxen, wolves, foxes, grizzlies, polar bears
and migratory birds. Leaders in the oil industry believe
the refuge is the perfect site for the “environmentally
sensitive exploration” of oil. Environmentalists are
wondering: What will become of the wildlife?
President George W. Bush, oil-industry leaders and others
believe that Americans will benefit from the oil that lies
under the snow-filled surface of the refuge. In their
opinion, the oil will help reduce high fuel prices and
decrease our need for oil from other countries.
I believe the cost of such drilling is too high. I agree with
environmentalists who fear that drilling will disturb the
migration of more than 130,000 caribou. Each spring, the
caribou travel 400 miles to give birth on the coastal plain.
In this area of the refuge, there are fewer predators. In
addition, experts say that the oil in the area adds up to
less than a six-month supply. Is such a small amount of oil
worth the risk drilling poses to these animals?
Americans are the largest consumers of oil. Instead of
drilling for oil, we should decrease our need for foreign
oil simply by using less. We must all work together to cut
back on the oil we use in order to preserve the wildlife
of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.
Instead of just saying Americans should use less oil, what else should the author do to make the argument stronger?
The author could strengthen their argument by providing more evidence and statistics to support their claims. They could include data on the potential negative impact of drilling on the specific wildlife species mentioned, such as the caribou, moose, and migratory birds. This could include information on population decline, habitat destruction, or disruption of migration patterns due to oil drilling in other areas.
Additionally, the author could provide examples or case studies of successful alternatives to drilling for oil. They could highlight countries or communities that have successfully implemented energy conservation measures or transitioned to renewable energy sources, resulting in reduced reliance on oil. This would further emphasize the feasibility and effectiveness of reducing oil consumption.
Furthermore, the author could address the economic aspect of the argument. They could argue that investing in renewable energy sources and energy-efficient technologies can create jobs and stimulate economic growth, ultimately benefiting the American population. By highlighting the potential economic benefits of reducing oil consumption, the author could appeal to a wider range of readers who may be more motivated by economic incentives.
By incorporating additional evidence, examples, and addressing the economic aspect of the argument, the author can make a stronger case for decreasing oil consumption instead of drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.