First Response
All this talk of the dangers of salmon farming are overblown. We cannot determine with scientific certainty that there are these effects. In fact, there is a report published by Salmon Farmers, Inc. that denies the impact of salmon farming on the environment. Besides, any potential negative environment effects are off-set by the economic gains. We should not hinder the ability of Canadian businesses to make profit as they see fit.This is disguised as responsive, but isn’t really. It looks like an attempt to directly refute premise (1); however, the author is clear that she is talking about “all non-partisan, scientific studies,” whereas the critic is citing an industry-sponsored study. [Note: In “real-life” research groups will not be so straightforward as to call themselves “Salmon Farmers Inc.,” which is why it is important to find out the source of a study and who funds the research team that authored the study].
Second Response
All this talk of the dangers of salmon farming are overblown. We cannot determine with scientific certainty that there are these effects. In fact, there is a report published by Salmon Farmers, Inc. that denies the impact of salmon farming on the environment. Besides, any potential negative environment effects are off-set by the economic gains. We should not hinder the ability of Canadian businesses to make profit as they see fit.This part of the rebuttal is directly responsive. It attempts to challenge the suppressed premise that we should always mitigate environmental devastation. This critic sees environmental devastation as something to be traded-off against economic interests.
Now Imagine that Sally gave the following rebuttal to Harry's second criticism:
While we clearly have different opinions on the comparative value of environment protection and economic prosperity, we need not see these two values as conflicting in this case. The Suzuki foundation cites that “closed-system, solid wall pens with sewage system systems - solid wall pens with sewage treatment - have been tested in the US with favourable results.”1 They also note that the “higher capital cost was offset by significantly lower operating costs,”2 and that the output was higher because of higher fish survival rate and more efficient use of food. We thus could require all farms to use such systems without sacrificing economic prosperity.Is this responsive? (answer)
Return to Exercise on Argument
Analysis
Return to the Philosophy 120 home page
1. http://www.davidsuzuki.org/Oceans/Fish_Farming/Salmon/Solutions.asp.
Accessed May 10, 2004.
2. Ibid.