A claim can be a verbal or written statement about something. Normally when someone claims something they provide support with it. Evidence is brought on the subject to prove the subject matter in reality of factually. Evidence are similar to statistics and facts that can be used to support a claim that someone has claimed. An explanation is a reason for the claim, this gives the audience/reader reasoning on the claim. Whether it is correct, moral or whatnot. If a claim doesn’t have support, evidence and explanation(s) it will never stand its ground against critics or the opposition. It is vital that a claim have these parts; if not, a claim will neither have progress nor direction like a sailboat with no sail.
Michail Crichton’s article made some reasonable sense, because I agree with his claims and observance of how society works nowadays. His support makes sense, and is interesting to read about the subject. This article is a very interesting topic that is stimulating. Many people don’t care about the environment and think so little of the littering or the excessive usage of resources. I found the topic of removing the religion of environmentalism and implementing the science of environmentalism caught my attention. I think Crichton’s tone was serious that had a little sarcastic twist to a few things. It is evident that he is supporting the topic, and believes in it. He clearly states that he isn’t try to persuade anyone to change their belief. He simply is informing what’s wrong with society’s understanding about the environment and gives a solution for it. Crichton’s main claim is that when people have environmentalism as a religion, it negates the efforts of preserving the environment. A supporting claim he gives is how respected sources give false or exaggerated information to manipulate how people conduct their actions in regards of the environment. Such as his statement about the EPA’s false claim of secondhand smoke. Throughout this article he gives sufficient support to his claims. However, he doesn’t cite his sources because citing them will only impact a handful, and he basically words it like it would not be worth the trouble to do it. But he does have a point though because think about people that are just in strict opposition of his article, they wouldn’t even spend the time to look them up and check for validity. So maybe he does have a point. However what about the people who are intrigued about this topic, citing this topic would be very helpful and supportive. His argument is strong but lacks the hard evidence that will help people think that.