The conclusion made in the provided argument attributes the decline in deer population to the climate change. In supporting the conclusion the argument provides one evidence, which is a survey from the local hunters, who stated that the deer population is declining. The evidence doesn't explain the proportion to which the decline has been and never mentions about the authenticity of the survey. This being the only evidence provided the conclusion arrived from it is questionable.
With more evidences the argument might have been plausible, given that, the evidences support the conclusion. The other evidences that could have been included are as follows. First, the authenticity of the survey with exact numbers showing how much region the survey covered and how long was the sruvey taken along with respones for the survey. The survey should also include the authenticity of the persons who took the survey to make it more reliable. Second, there could be an evidence about the study made about the climate change and the impact of the climate change in the frozen area that has been stated. Another evidence could be a study on the level of hunting going on, and how much it is impacting the deer population.
Having stated these evidences, they can be both supportive or against the conclusion based on how they are provided. For example, if the survey taken is from a small sample and doesn't cover a vast area then the survey is no more reliable and thus it would be completely against the conclusion. Next, if the climate study concludes the change in amount of ice and there is no way the deer can move to search for food this would highly support the conclusion. Finally, the evidence of hunting activity could be a real clue on what is causing the decline if there is one. If the hunters are hunting at a higher rate than the deers can populate this is supposed to impact the balance and would highly weaken the conclusion made.
With these stated, the provided argument is lacking evidences in supporting it's conclusion. If more evidences are provided on might be able to assess the authenticity of the provided argument. A good study on the provided evidences is needed before arriving in any conclusion.
argument 1 -- not OK
argument 2 -- not OK
--------------------
In GRE, we have to accept all data or evidence are true. It is important to find out loopholes behind surveys or studies. Loopholes mean that we accept all surveys told are true, but there are some conditions applied, for example:
It works for time A (10 years ago), but it doesn't mean it works for time B (nowadays).
It works for location A (a city, community, nation), but it doesn't mean it works for location B (another city, community, nation).
It works for people A (a manager), but it doesn't mean it works for people B (a worker).
It works for event A (one event, project... ), but it doesn't mean it works for event B (another event, project...).
for example, we have to accept that the reports from local hunters are true. Maybe the declining of deer populations is not because of the global warming, but illegal hunting .
----------------------
Attribute Value Ideal
Score: ? out of 6
Category: Poor Excellent
No. of Grammatical Errors: 0 2
No. of Spelling Errors: 0 2
No. of Sentences: 18 15
No. of Words: 380 350
No. of Characters: 1810 1500
No. of Different Words: 156 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.415 4.7
Average Word Length: 4.763 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.494 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 128 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 93 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 63 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 35 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 21.111 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 6.691 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.444 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.361 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.539 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.121 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 4 5