Cats Pros And Cons

Main argument:
(1) The numerous problems of a cat going outdoors

Sub argument:
(2) Multiple medical diseases outdoor living cats can get

(3) Awareness of the trend (making cats socially unacceptable) natural wildlife, is in decline, cats have a significant blame

(4) Cats are driving wildlife to extinction

Premises:

Premises + sub-argument (2) =
(5) Cornell University in Massachusetts, scientists reported a case where a cat turned up infected with a worm found in raccoons.

(6) Cats are three to four times more likely to carry rabies then dogs

(7) Cats are known to get many parasites or infectious microbes like roundworms, hookworms, giardia and campylobacter

Premises+ sub-argument (3) =
(8) Twenty common North American bird species have dropped by 68% since 1967. A variety of factors are to blame

(9) In
Because it is certain that wildlife is declining and cats have a significant role as to why this is occurring. (8) Is what makes this argument to be invalid. The author states the decline to be 68% but in context he is blaming the cats. But has written “a variety of factors are to blame”, this doesn’t make sense because he is trying to blame cats for the decline in wildlife but it is really because of the clearing of land. (9) Is also dependent on this because it is farmland animals where the land is being heavily cleared for more urbanization. Yet he is still trying to blame cats for this with (11). The fact presented is not enough in detail to support the claim. It lacks detail as to how many rats and mice do they kill every year. What proportion are chipmunks, squirrels and rabbits killed. Cats are used to control population numbers for rabbits so this makes the fact unreliable. It also lacks the reproduction rates to which these animals replenish their population. Therefore in the context of the argument when trying to blame cats for the decline in wildlife it is invalid and thus a bad