Evaluating Advocacy Groups.edited

docx

School

Polytechnic University of the Philippines *

*We aren’t endorsed by this school

Course

3600

Subject

Philosophy

Date

Nov 24, 2024

Type

docx

Pages

Uploaded by ChefAlbatross3761

1 Evaluating Advocacy Groups' Arguments on Hydraulic Fracturing Student’s Name Professor Institution Course Date

2 Evaluating Advocacy Groups' Arguments on Hydraulic Fracturing Introduction Hydraulic fracturing, often called fracking, is a subject of intense debate in contemporary energy and environmental discussions. This essay thoroughly examines the claims and viewpoints made in support of different advocacy organizations' perspectives on hydraulic fracturing. We want to debunk prevalent myths and misunderstandings about fracking via a thorough study, break down the components of these arguments, and evaluate the logical and inductive reasoning behind them. The goal is to arm Representative Wright with the knowledge she needs to develop a sensible and well-informed opinion. Given its complexity, this paper aims to provide a more nuanced understanding of the economic, environmental, and health-related ramifications of fracking. Common Conceptions and Misconceptions Common Conceptions 1. Economic Benefits One of the widespread beliefs about fracking is that it has tremendous economic advantages. Fracking proponents contend that it boosts energy independence, lowers energy prices, and generates employment. According to the industry where it is present, local economies are strengthened (Gallegos, 2023). Fracking is often seen as a temporary energy source while transitioning to more sustainable sources. Its supporters think it can lower greenhouse gas emissions and be a transitional source of cleaner energy. 2. Energy Security

3 Supporters argue that fracking improves national energy security by lowering dependency on foreign oil and gas. It is seen as a means of stabilizing the nation's energy supply. Misconceptions 1. Environmental Damage It is a common misperception that fracking always harms the environment. Its detractors claim it pollutes the air, causes earthquakes, and contaminates groundwater (Cantarow, 2013). Here, it is assumed that fracking poses an inherent environmental risk. 2. Impact on Climate Due to methane emissions, a potent greenhouse gas, some think fracking worsens climate change. Fracking operations' considerable methane leakage is believed to contribute considerably to global warming. 3. Health risks There are myths regarding the health dangers of fracking, especially regarding air and water contamination (YouTube Movies, 2014). Living close to fracking operations is thought to offer serious health risks. However, my view as a consultant was impartial before undertaking the study. I was aware of the potential economic advantages of fracking, but I was also worried about how it might affect the environment and public health. To arrive at a well-informed viewpoint, it was necessary to assess the arguments put out by advocacy organizations critically. Components of the Arguments Main Point or Conclusion

Your preview ends here

Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version

Access to all documents
Unlimited textbook solutions
24/7 expert homework help

4 Advocacy organizations' primary points for their cases vary. Fracking advocates promote the advantages it has for the economy and energy security. Anti-fracking organizations emphasize environmental and health dangers. Main Arguments and Subarguments i. The subarguments put out by pro-fracking organizations emphasize job development, energy independence, and cheaper energy prices. The following antecedents support the primary conclusion concerning economic gains. ii. According to anti-fracking organizations, the practice pollutes water, causes climate change, and endangers human health. These supporting arguments support the main finding that fracking is detrimental. Premises and Assumptions i. Groups in favor of fracking believe that fracking can be done safely with the right laws and breakthroughs in technology. The basic idea is that all hazards may be reduced with suitable supervision. ii. Anti-fracking organizations believe considerable concerns are associated with pollution, gas leaks, and health effects. They argue that fracking has inherent risks. Evaluating the Deductive and Inductive Arguments Deductive Arguments i. Arguments favoring fracking often use deductive reasoning, claiming it can lower prices, increase energy security, and generate employment. However, some of these justifications can be lacking grounds, such as the need for strict laws to guarantee safety.

5 ii. Deductive reasoning may also be used in anti-fracking arguments to support claims that fracking harms the environment and people's health. The quality of the supporting evidence and the existence of logical flaws determine the viability of these arguments. Inductive Arguments i. Inductive arguments in favor of fracking are likely to imply that, given prior experiences, the economic advantages of fracking are plausible. The caliber of the evidence and research used to support these claims determines how persuasive they are. ii. Anti-fracking inductive justifications aim to show how likely the environment and human health will be harmed (Cantarow, 2013). These arguments hold up well if backed by scientific research but may also be challenged if new knowledge becomes available. Statistical Myths If arguments for or against fracking present data incorrectly or make unsubstantiated assertions, they may be vulnerable to statistical fallacies. These statements must be carefully evaluated to ensure that the arguments are sound. Conclusion It is vital to assess the arguments put out by advocacy organizations in the divisive discussion around hydraulic fracturing. The widespread misunderstandings and preconceptions regarding fracking serve to emphasize how complicated the situation is. We may make better conclusions by dissecting the arguments' constituent parts and evaluating the inductive and deductive logic. As a consultant to Representative Wright, I aim to balance the advantages and disadvantages of fracking fairly. One must weigh possible economic benefits against environmental and health risks to do this. We must emphasize evidence-based reasoning, open

6 data, and continuing study to arrive at a solid stance on this hotly debated subject. With this strategy, we will be able to reconcile the preservation of the public's health and the environment with the requirement for energy independence. References Angiola, Gina M. “Ban Fracking, It’s the Rational Choice - Baltimore Sun.” Digitaledition.baltimoresun.com , 2016,

Your preview ends here

Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version

Access to all documents
Unlimited textbook solutions
24/7 expert homework help

7 digitaledition.baltimoresun.com/tribune/article_popover.aspx?guid=0eed6dda-b9fa-4926- 9947-ff1fed50ebc8. Cantarow, Ellen. “Former Mobil vp Warns of Fracking and Climate Change.” Truthout , 19 July 2013, truthout.org/articles/former-mobil-vp-warns-of-fracking-and-climate-change/. Gallegos, Tanya J. “Hydraulic Fracturing (Fracking).” McGraw Hill’s AccessScience , 2023, www.accessscience.com/content/article/a326700. Accessed 21 Oct. 2023. YouTube Movies. “FrackNation - Trailer.” YouTube , 29 May 2014, www.youtube.com/watch? v=AM6D_hPcox8.

Evaluating Advocacy Groups.edited

Related Documents