Question

Use the following two arguments to answer the question.

Argument 1: Federal laws protecting gray wolves should be removed. Many ranchers want to allow hunting wolves again. They point to increased wolf populations in several states. Numbers have grown from under 1,000 to more than 5,000. The increase has led to more wolf attacks on sheep and cattle.

Argument 2: Federal laws protecting gray wolves should stay in place. Conservationists say that current wolf packs and populations are not at all stable. They point to the fact that wolves neared extinction before laws protecting them were enacted. Allowing hunting could eliminate the gains.

Is each argument convincing? 

(1 point)

No, neither argument is sufficient enough to be convincing.

Yes, both arguments are convincing.

Argument 1 is convincing, but Argument 2 is not.

Argument 2 is convincing, but Argument 1 is not.

Answer 1

Argument 2 is convincing, but Argument 1 is not.

Argument 1 relies on raw population increases and livestock complaints but lacks context (distribution, stability, genetic health, nonlethal mitigation, or whether federal protections are the real barrier). Argument 2 notes the species' prior near-extinction and current instability and reasonably warns that lifting protections could reverse recovery, which is a stronger, more cautious case.