1) i like Crichton’s argument and i do agree with him, the humiliation keep of our national parks really made me think. we aren’t putting enough emphasis on good environmental management. this really stuck out to me.
2) He has a serious tone, a tone that is trying to explain a situation. he tries to make the reader fell somewhat mad at the current situation, this is to get the reader on his side.
3) His main claim is that religion has no place in environmentalism. he makes quite a few claims.
4) He explains how the DDT and the EPA are hopelessly politicized and need to be restarted as something like the food and drug administration. he cites things from fossil fuels to talks of the future to support his point. his evidence is somewhat scarce but it does prove his point.
5) not citing his sources defiantly hurt his case because his evidence then suffers, there seems like there is not any substance.
6) though Crichton’s opinions are strong his evidence or argument is not he doesn’t have good evidence, doesn’t cite anything.