In this article “Ancient glaciers are disappearing faster than ever”, the author Michael McCarthy claims that glaciers are melting faster then ever before, I am going to prove Micheal McCarthy’s argument to be false on the basis that he supplies a lack of sourcing and evidence towards his unconvincing argument. Through analyzation of the Micheal McCarthy’s article I will exhibit how strong sources can strengthen a argument, unlike the argument in which this article is focused on.
Micheal starts his article by stating that “Melting ice is pouring off Greenland and Antarctica into the sea far faster than was previously realized because of global warming, new scientific research reveals today.” (McCarthy, 2009). This exert has no validity because his factual statement has no specific evidence to convince his audience that his statement is true. When Micheal mentions “new scientific research reveals today” (McCarthy,2009) he doesn’t explain where the new scientific research is coming from, who wrote it and what it is specifically about. Therefore he does not have any credited sources, which leads to a unconvincing argument.
Another instance of Micheal’s improper use of credited sources, is when he talks about “High-resolution satellite laser measurements have shown that along both the Greenland and Antarctic coastlines, the glaciers and ice streams which for thousands of years have slowly carried ice into the sea are now rapidly thinning, meaning they are speeding up in their flow.” (McCarthy,2009). Once again Micheal has no evidence to prove that his facts are correct. He does not justify what high-resolution satellite laser research has given him his facts. Also he himself has no evidence that the ice streams that have been caring ice into the ocean for thousands of year are now rapidly thinning, because he clearly hasn't been around for thousands of years and has no scientific research or mathematical data referenced in his article to back up his evidence to his argument.
In the Book “The Craft Of Research”, It talks about supporting your claim and how to “back up that claim with two kinds of support: reason and evidence.” (Booth, Colomb, Williams, 2008). Micheal only has reason to back up his argument towards the premise of glaciers melting. Even if his reason is good, his claim has no arguement because with no evidence there is no argument to be made. As “The Craft Of Research” states again “we dont’ base evidence on reason; we base reason on evidence” (Booth, Colomb, Williams, 2008). In the case of this article Micheal’s reason must be false because he has no evidence based on his reason.
After the analyzation of Micheal McCarthy’s article about ancient glacial melting, it is evident that Micheal’s article is false based on his complete lack of evidence and sources to back up his reasoning. With proper sources and citation this article could have been relative to the topic of fresh water resources. However without proper sourcing, citation and evidence this articles argument is unconvincing.
Booth, Wayne G., Gregory G. Colomb, and Joseph M. Williams. The Craft of Research, Third Edition (Chicago Guides to Writing, Editing, and Publishing). 3rd ed. New York: University Of Chicago, 2008. Print.
McCarthy, Micheal. "Ancient glaciers are disappearing faster than ever." Ancient glaciers are disappearing faster than ever (2009): 1-1. The Independent. 24 Sept. 2009. Web. 27 Sept. 2009. <http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/climate-change/ancient-glaciers-are-disappearing-faster-than-ever-1792274.html>.
I have found your argument against the validity of Michael McCarthy’s article very convincing. It is certainly hard to accept his claims without even one properly cited source. However, just to analyse his claim, let us accept his statistics as true. Initially it seems as though the main focus of this article is to convince the reader that glaciers are shrinking at an increasingly fast rate. There are many statistics given to elaborate on this, though of course they must be taken critically. It is then quoted that “Humanity must stay within the defined boundaries of several of Earth’s natural processes for face catastrophe.” (McCarthy, 2009) This statement, along with the lamenting tone of the title leads me to believe that this article is an attempt to make people conscious of the problem of glacial melt and help in the prevention of it. As the reader, the person that McCarthy is endeavouring to motivate, I now what to know ‘Why?’. Why should I care if glaciers are melting, what are the consequences of increased sea water levels. McCarthy mentions an undefined boundary with terrible consequences on the other side, but I think he needs to explain what these consequences might be to really make the article an effective warning. Even if his facts are unsupported, it is interesting to note that with more tangible consequences, McCarthy’s warning would still be influential.
ReplyDelete-Amy Adair
0660106
I agree with your reasoning against the author’s, Michael McCarthy’s, editorial. From your blog, in numerous occasions, it is apparent that no factual evidence from reliable sources are presented by McCarthy to demonstrate his own point. By sighting the book “the Craft of Research” you detail a valid point that McCarthy has failed to provide his article with the two main kinds of support; reason and evidence. This helps to show the readers that without the aide of sources, articles even if presented by credible authors, should be reviewed critically in order to determine validity of the article.
ReplyDelete-Emily Hartwig
i agree that McCarthy should have used citations, so that we can accept his claims as valid. My problem with your argument is that you say you are going to "prove Micheal McCarthy’s argument to be false on the basis that he supplies a lack of sourcing and evidence towards his unconvincing argument." You never actually proved him wrong, you simply showed that he may not be right. There is a difference between disproving a statement and not seeing the proof in an argument. To prove McCarthy's argument false, you would have to have shown evidence contradicting that of McCarthy's. What you did was show the author how to make his argument more believable.
ReplyDelete