Name of group members: Andre Robinson, Lisa Jarrett, Shanique Rebow, Kimberly McIntyre, Rachelle Frater Id#: 620015417,
Tutor: Ms Lawrence
The title of the article being analyzed is: LETTER OF THE DAY: Biologists speak on Cockpit mining. The controversy that is being addressed by the article is weather or not to mine the Cockpit country for its bauxite reserves. The claim being put forward by the writers is that the Cockpit country must not be mined for its bauxite reserves as the negative environmental consequences of the mining operations would outweigh the benefits that would be gained from doing so. This claim is stated in the tenth paragraph. The support for the claims used by the writers is that the Cockpit country is an important habitat for many species of plants and animals that only exist here, some of whom are endangered, and that the destruction of this habitat would lead to much extinction. The other reason supporting the claim that was used was that mining in this area would sabotage the headwater or source for many rivers that are important to many rural fishing communities that use them as a source of water, food and income. Another support for this claim is that there are more environmentally friendly ways to profit from the region such as eco tourism and cultural tourism. It reasonable to consider the support that was used to validate the claim as being accurate due to the good ethos created by the fact that this article represents the opinions of six highly qualified experts. It is fair to say that the support that was used to sell the claim to the audience was also relevant. The claim that mining in this area would lead to the mass extinctions of many endemic life forms is relevant to the argument as this would be a direct permanent, negative effect of the
mining. The fact that mining in this area would sabotage the headwater or source for many rivers also relevant as this would have a major negative economic impact on Jamaica. This serves to counter the argument by the miners that mining in this region would have largely positive impact on the nation. The fact that there are alternative ways to profit from the region is also relevant as this makes the option of mining look even more unattractive as the alternatives are not associated with the destructive environmental consequences of mining. The audience that that the authors are trying to reach are the government, particularly the minister of agriculture Roger Clarke, and those members of the general public who are likely to take interest in this issue. The writers made the article suitable to the government by addressing them generally and Roger Clarke directly in the article. The writers made the article suitable to the members of the general public who are likely to take interest in this issue by putting it in the Gleaner where most people are likely to read it and the use of the use of the average laymans vocabulary to make the article more reader friendly. This article presents an effective argument. It does so by making a strong appeal to logic via the heavy use of statistical proof, facts and showing a clear cause and effect link between the mining and the negative effect thereof. This article is also an effective argument due the good ethos mentioned earlier of the writers represented by the article. This article is also an effective argument due to its strong appeal to pathos. This appeal is seen in emotional phrases such as We also strongly recommend the consideration of long-term sustainable options for the economic development of the area.