The following is a letter to the editor of an environmental magazine.

“The decline in the numbers of amphibians worldwide clearly indicates the global pollution of water and air. Two studies of amphibians in Yosemite National Park in California confirm my conclusion. In 1915 there were seven species of amphibians in the park, and there were abundant numbers of each species. However, in 1992 there were only four species of amphibians observed in the park, and the numbers of each species were drastically reduced. The decline in Yosemite has been blamed on the introduction of trout into the park’s waters, which began in 1920 (trout are known to eat amphibian eggs). But the introduction of trout cannot be the real reason for the Yosemite decline because it does not explain the worldwide decline.”

The above article appeared as a letter to the editor of an environmental magazine. The arguer wants to suggest that water and air pollution has been the cause of decline in the numbers of amphibians worldwide. The arguer presents various arguments in support of his stand. The first argument presented by the arguer is that in 1915 there were seven species of amphibians in Yosemite National Park and they were in large numbers also. The arguer further supports his argument by mentioning that in 1992 there were only four species of amphibians left in the park and their number also declined considerably. The second argument presented by the arguer in support of his stand is that the decline in the numbers of amphibians in Yosemite National Park is because of trout’s being introduced in the park. Trout were introduced in 1920 and they are known to eat amphibian eggs. The arguer further says that in other places across the world trout was not the reason for declining amphibian numbers. Thus, the arguer has concluded that air and water pollution are at fault. The arguments presented by the arguer are not sufficient enough to convince us regarding the declining population of amphibians worldwide.

The first argument presented by the arguer is the study of Yosemite National Park in California which brings into notice the fact that as compared to seven species of amphibians in the park in 1915 there were only four species in 1992 and also their numbers have declined. In the first place the arguer fails to mention the exact numbers of amphibians across the world. If the figures are missing it would not be viable to blame pollution for the declining rate of amphibians as the reasons could be numerous. It is possible that majority of the amphibians were old and they died their natural death. The arguer is basing his recommendation on the study of one particular park. The climate and habitats of amphibians across the world are different.

The second argument presented by the arguer in support of his stand is that the decline in the numbers of amphibians in Yosemite National Park is because of trout’s being introduced in the park. The arguer is blaming trout alone for the decline in amphibian ratio. It is quite possible that across the world the water bodies were shrinking and that’s why amphibians were decreasing. It is also possible that amphibians were prey to some bigger animals. It is also possible that the breading conditions for the animals were not suitable. There is a possibility that there was dearth of food for amphibians.

Finally, the arguer is comparing the old study with the new study. The arguer fails to bring into notice that there has been a gap of 77 years. The conditions in which the earlier study was done would be different from the recent study. Therefore, two studies can not be taken as bases for the conclusion. The arguer has also not mentioned anywhere the ill effects of air or water pollution on amphibians.

The arguments presented by the arguer fail to convince us. The arguer has not been able to prove his point. Therefore, his recommendation should not be agreed upon.