Article Analysis

For this article analysis I chose the first article, The Endangered Species Act Should Be Preserved, by John D. Dingell. He makes the claim that there are some people that want to change the ESA (Endangered Species Act), to allow for military exemptions. His basic premise is that the ESA is working and should not be changed.
There were several things that I felt were effective in this article. For example one of the things that he mentions is that recently, our military has been having success, and they have been doing so without changing the ESA. The only drawback to a claim such as this is that different people have different ideas of what success is, and also that perhaps this success had nothing to do with endangered species.
Another very powerful statement that he makes is that national security comes before the ESA. He then explains that the ESA has a waiver process that the military can go through so that the military can more fully protect the nation if conflict arises. I felt that this not only addressed the opposition, but it also gives the ESA more credibility, as we can see that it is flexible to the needs of the military if they are willing to go through the waiver process. He makes it sound like it would be unnecessary for the military to have exemptions, because they have this process. However, because I am not an expert on the subject, perhaps it is very difficult to go through this waiver process, in which the author could be using a straw-man fallacy.
One of the last things that I noticed the author doing well was that of an appeal to our emotions, or pathos. He does this several ways, one of which was calling the ESA a nonpartisan act. This is very important to the reader, because when we see that something is nonpartisan, we think that most people agree with it and therefore it must be a good thing, because many people view political parties as a bad thing. Also, just the fact that he says he wants to save animals appeals to most people, because most people like animals.
One of the things that I do not like about this article is found in the beginning, when he talks about the unanimity of the vote for the ESA. I do not like it because the vote occurred 30 years ago, and people’s opinions may have changed! Just because it was unanimous then, does not mean that perhaps it should not be modified now.
Another thing that I didn’t find particularly effective was the fact that he spouts off facts such as different animals that have been “restored”, but he does not give any field data, such as the population changes over time of different species that are classified as endangered. By not giving us this information, his “facts” lose much of their credibility, in my opinion. If the animals are being preserved, show us the numbers!
Finally, I did not like how the author only spoke of the ESA with relationship to the military. Other people, like landowners, have had problems with the ESA, but the author does not mention these things. By limiting his discussion to just military matters, I feel he loses some credibility. At the same time, this would be effective for those who do not like the military very much. However, if he wanted to make his argument complete, he would have to include an argument for why the ESA should not be changed with other people, such as landowners who struggle with this act, if he was to have more credibility.