Oil Sands Argument Analysis
The development of the oil sands is a highly contested issue. The Globe and Mail published an article about why the oil sans should be established. It states that Oil revenue is essential to the economy of Alberta and to an extent the economy of Canada. As a result the government backs the oil sands. CBC published an article on why oil sands expansion should be stopped. The article states that scientists and environmental groups are pushing for no new oil sands to be developed because of the detrimental effects on the environment. Overall the CBC article is more convincing than the globe and mail article. It makes excellent points about the environmental impact the oil sands have which is more important than the economy in the long run. If
…show more content…
researchers say states that more than “100 Canadian and American Researchers are calling for a moratorium on the expansion of the oil sands based on 10 reasons grounded in science.” The researchers comprising of biologists, geographers, physicists, political scientists signed a statement issued by the University of Waterloo, Simon Fraser University and the University of Arizona. The reasons for they are calling for a moratorium are that carbon emissions are making climate change worse, aboriginal rights, contamination of the environment and possible effects on international policy. The researchers state evidence that stopping the oil sands expansion wont significantly impact the economy. The scientists are not trying to shut down current oil sands projects, simply they are asking that no new ones be started unless there is a plan to reduce carbon pollution, biodiversity human health are being protected and ensure treaty rights are being followed. More research is urgently needed no matter what cost the to ensure that the oil sands are being developed …show more content…
It sources its evidence in the article making it clear that the author got the information from a credible source and did not just make it up. The Globe and Mail article never directly says the source of its evidence. It seems driven by opinion and bias rather then by factual evidence. The CBC article gives the names of the majority of its sources and the university or association they work for. The Globe and Mail article uses a lot of number based statistics but doesn’t specifically state where they came from discrediting their validity. By having so much evidence the Globe and Mail article actually makes The CBC article’s evidence effectively back up the points it is trying to make by the quotes it uses. The quotes are directly related to the point they are trying to prove as opposed to the Globe and mail article, which just throws around numbers that don’t always directly relate to the argument it is trying to prove. The CBC article uses a good balance of opinion and evidence, which proves effective in supporting its argument. The Globe and Mail article doesn’t have a good balance between opinion and evidence instead relying heavily on statistics that don’t prove
researchers say states that more than “100 Canadian and American Researchers are calling for a moratorium on the expansion of the oil sands based on 10 reasons grounded in science.” The researchers comprising of biologists, geographers, physicists, political scientists signed a statement issued by the University of Waterloo, Simon Fraser University and the University of Arizona. The reasons for they are calling for a moratorium are that carbon emissions are making climate change worse, aboriginal rights, contamination of the environment and possible effects on international policy. The researchers state evidence that stopping the oil sands expansion wont significantly impact the economy. The scientists are not trying to shut down current oil sands projects, simply they are asking that no new ones be started unless there is a plan to reduce carbon pollution, biodiversity human health are being protected and ensure treaty rights are being followed. More research is urgently needed no matter what cost the to ensure that the oil sands are being developed …show more content…
It sources its evidence in the article making it clear that the author got the information from a credible source and did not just make it up. The Globe and Mail article never directly says the source of its evidence. It seems driven by opinion and bias rather then by factual evidence. The CBC article gives the names of the majority of its sources and the university or association they work for. The Globe and Mail article uses a lot of number based statistics but doesn’t specifically state where they came from discrediting their validity. By having so much evidence the Globe and Mail article actually makes The CBC article’s evidence effectively back up the points it is trying to make by the quotes it uses. The quotes are directly related to the point they are trying to prove as opposed to the Globe and mail article, which just throws around numbers that don’t always directly relate to the argument it is trying to prove. The CBC article uses a good balance of opinion and evidence, which proves effective in supporting its argument. The Globe and Mail article doesn’t have a good balance between opinion and evidence instead relying heavily on statistics that don’t prove