JADIE KIM- newspaper article2

Jadie Kim
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7585645.stm

This article is about the decline of Arctic ice and how the decline has become steeper recently. The writer says that the Arctic melt will increase global warming because “open water absorbs more of the Sun's energy than ice does.” However, he does not give any examples and explanation to support this argument. As a result, his argument loses credibility and many readers will not even understand what he is trying to say.

Looking at the title of this article, “Arctic ice 'is at tipping point'”, the readers are likely to assume that the writer believes in global warming. Thus, the article appears biased from the first glance.
The writer’s argument that “the ice-covered area has fallen below its 2005 level, which was the second lowest on record” is backed up by the National Snow and Ice Data Center (NSIDC). Since NSIDC is a reliable source, the information sounds valid and convincing.

Also, when the writer says, “The area covered by ice on 26 August measured 5.26 million sq km (2.03 million sq miles), just below the 2005 low of 5.32 million sq km (2.05 million sq)”, he is using scientific data to support this argument.

The article presents the graph of Arctic sea extent in which 2008 graph shows a steeper decline than at the same time last year. The Graph can be a powerful source and is likely to convince the readers more easily, since people tend to be more attracted to visuals than words.

In the article, the writer often refers to just “scientists” and “some researchers” instead of actual names of the people. This greatly undermines his argument and the reliability of the information he presents.

“That [Arctic ice melt] will bring, including the chance to drill for oil and gas. Burning that oil and gas would increase levels of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere still further.”; this quote contains too many assumptions. First of all, the writer suggests the economic opportunities out of blue and he continues to say burning oil would increase greenhouse gases. Suddenly the writer throws all these “conjectures” without single explanation. He just assumes the readers to understand his argument but it lacks coherence and leaves the readers with more confusion.