The Amazon Rainforest is being harmed in many different ways and Amazonians, Rubber tappers, Loggers, Settlers, Cattle Ranchers and the Environmental Groups, are trying to save it. My Interest Group I choose was The Rubber Tappers. I think the Rubber Tappers deserve to control the land because they are very beneficial to the rainforest and everyday resources because rubber tappers should be able to control the land because they're trying to save the trees from being illegally cut down, rubber tapper should be able to control the Amazon rainforest because they tap the sap without harming the trees,and rubber tapping is used to make products such as erasers, or tires for cars, and bikes
My first sub-claim is Rubber Tappers should be able to …show more content…
Specifically, it states “Rubber tappers remove sap from a rubber tree by making diagonal cuts in the bark. They collect the sap in cups.” This evidence supports the main claim because it states how the rubber tappers take the sap, from the tree by making diagonal cuts in the tree. Based on this, we must conclude rubber tappers should own the land because of them making diagonal cuts in the tree does not harm the tree. For example “Today we no longer make deep cuts in the tree. This weakens the rubber until it got sick and stops producing. We’ve learned that clear and fewer cuts can provide a better quality of latex and preserve the rubbers and its production,” These facts/ examples work together to build a cas that Rubber tappers should own the amazon rainforest because they make fewer and clear cuts doesn’t weaken the tree than making deeper cuts. An illustration of “Rubber can be tapped from a different place in the same tree every few days, but the same position can only be tapped in 1-2 years. This enables the tree to be tapped without harming its growth .” This evidence supports my sub-claim because it shows how rubber tapping can be tapped in the same tree every few days and can be tapped in the same position 1-2 years. The evidence I selected for this sub-claim supports my main claim because it shows us how rubber tapping doesn’t harm the trees, and also how it is an sustainable management. In summary the evidence synthesizes with my sub-claim to support my main-claim because it shows how rubber tapping doesn’t harm the rubber
My first sub-claim is Rubber Tappers should be able to …show more content…
Specifically, it states “Rubber tappers remove sap from a rubber tree by making diagonal cuts in the bark. They collect the sap in cups.” This evidence supports the main claim because it states how the rubber tappers take the sap, from the tree by making diagonal cuts in the tree. Based on this, we must conclude rubber tappers should own the land because of them making diagonal cuts in the tree does not harm the tree. For example “Today we no longer make deep cuts in the tree. This weakens the rubber until it got sick and stops producing. We’ve learned that clear and fewer cuts can provide a better quality of latex and preserve the rubbers and its production,” These facts/ examples work together to build a cas that Rubber tappers should own the amazon rainforest because they make fewer and clear cuts doesn’t weaken the tree than making deeper cuts. An illustration of “Rubber can be tapped from a different place in the same tree every few days, but the same position can only be tapped in 1-2 years. This enables the tree to be tapped without harming its growth .” This evidence supports my sub-claim because it shows how rubber tapping can be tapped in the same tree every few days and can be tapped in the same position 1-2 years. The evidence I selected for this sub-claim supports my main claim because it shows us how rubber tapping doesn’t harm the trees, and also how it is an sustainable management. In summary the evidence synthesizes with my sub-claim to support my main-claim because it shows how rubber tapping doesn’t harm the rubber