Questions to Start You Thinking on ANWR: Not a Place for Profit

Meaning:

What points does Shide make to support her position that drilling should not be allowed in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.

All of Shide's points fall into one of three categories. First, that it is a violation of the charter and intent of setting aside Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. Second, that by allowing the drilling it would be detrimental to both the wildlife and the inherent beauty of the land. Finally, Shide asserts that by allowing them to proceed here, however limited, it set a precedent that cannot be stopped.

Shide suggests that all Americans share some responsibility for the pressures to drill in the refuge. What actions does she suggest Americans take?

Shide proposes that Americans change their behavior to reduce energy demands. This would be done in two ways. First, make lifestyle changes to use less energy and thus oil. The other is to make existing infrastructure more efficient and thus use less energy and oil.

What negative effects of oil exploration, aside from the drilling itself, does Shide identify?

Shide has three main themes on the negative effects of the oil exploration. First, it would result in a loss of pride. Second, it industrialize and thus damage a beautiful, natural habitat. Finally, it would decimate the wildlife population up to the point of extinction.

Writing Strategies:

What kind of support does Shide use to back up her claims about the danger of drilling in the wildlife refuge? Do you find her argument effective? Why, or why not?

Most of Shide's thesis is supported by either her personal emotive appeal or extending the references substantially beyond what the reference demonstrated. For example she fails to demonstrate that because BP Exploration was fined for dumping hazardous waste that hazardous dumping is a risk for the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. Again when citing the U.S. Geological Survey she concludes that it will ultimately lead to the land being affected much more than anticipated. Furthermore, she commits a number of logical fallacies. One in particular was an appeal to the people by citing that the majority of Americans do not support oil exploration in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. This could have been a valid appeal if it was addressed to a lawmaker but with the audience being the college newspaper readers it is not relevant. Overall, I do not find her argument effective because of her very flawed reasoning.

What source or sources does Shide draw on the most? Does her use of sources seem balanced overall? Why, or why not?

Shide draws the most from the Yale Political Union. Even in Shide's use of sources she does not cite expert opinion in support of her position. Furthermore, she seems to be making a faulty appeal to authority by citing Robert Redford who does not carry credentials to support an expert opinion. Her sources are not balanced because of there being very little expert opinion supporting her position.

At what point in the essay does Shide consider opposing point of view? Does she adequately address these views? Explain.

Shide only considers the opposing point of view once when they cite how little land will be effected. Shide attempted to discount this by making the appeal that this will create a precedent that will allow other protected areas to be used in the future for oil exploration or more of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. She provides no proof that by allowing this will set a damaging precedent and thus effectively concedes their point.

Using highlighters and marginal notes, identify the essay's introduction, thesis, major points or reasons, supporting evidence for each point, and conclusion. How effective if the organization of this essay?

I find Shide's organization very good in breaking down a couple of key points with a section to handle the opposing view. Her flaw lies in what she chose for evidence and how she dealt with the opposing view.