Kendra Washington's Arguments Of Possibility

he authors of “The Last Wilderness Preserve” and “ A New Land of Opportunity” present different arguments about the impact human behavior has on Antarctica. Based on critical evidence the author of the ‘’The Last Wilderness Preserve”, Kendra Washington, had the strongest argument.

Kendra Washington’s argument is about how she strongly believes that humans should not exploit the natural resources and the beautiful land of Antarctica because this can cause damage or “ threaten the natural state of land “. Author of “ A New Land Of Opportunity” Michael Serillo argues that humans should take advantage of the mysterious land such as the resources that the land of Antarctica. Both believe that the land is beautiful but have different views on how the land and resources should be used.

In “ The Last Wilderness Preserve” , Kendra Washington’s argument, “ Any human action that would harm Antarctica is a crime against nature and a threat to our future” , she also says ,“ but even small teams of scientists can bring harm to this otherwise untouched land. Some scientific pursuits may invite greed, exploitation and even conflict to Antarctica “. She gave clear, …show more content…
In the text he states that ,“while Antarctica still exists in it’s present state people must take the opportunity to explore and learn about the mysterious land “ based on my understanding what he’s trying to say because Antarctica is a one of a kind place that has many things to see, but then he says “our planet has limited supply of natural resources humans need to take advantage of all possible resources”. In the second text the author's argument is based on opinions more that were not properly supported by factual evidence. Author two made very strong points but little factual evidence to make his points