Difference between revisions of "Reconstruction of "Science Favors Wolves""
From Alfino
Jump to navigationJump to searchm (New page: So, the letter to the editor from today's class, "Science Favors wolves" could be reconstructed as follows: The author of this letter argues that Idaho's quota for legal killing of wolve...) |
|||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| + | Return to [[Critical Thinking]] | ||
| + | |||
So, the letter to the editor from today's class, "Science Favors wolves" could be reconstructed as follows: | So, the letter to the editor from today's class, "Science Favors wolves" could be reconstructed as follows: | ||
Latest revision as of 23:34, 15 September 2009
Return to Critical Thinking
So, the letter to the editor from today's class, "Science Favors wolves" could be reconstructed as follows:
The author of this letter argues that Idaho's quota for legal killing of wolves jeopardizes wolf recovery. Her main rationale for this claim is the argument that Idaho's Fish and Game official are bias toward pro-hunting interests. The author claims that in other cases Idaho officials were bias toward pro-hunting interests. Therefore, it is likely that they have set the quota too high.
Alfino 23:33, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
