The writer states that the industry generated $11 billion in GDP the previous year, and the major industry, Chesapeake, has paid out almost $2 billion in leases. The author also states that the industry has created more than 140,000 jobs and increases state and local taxes to about $1.2 billion. Conversely, the opposing writer, Barth, gives one piece of solid evidence, where the writer states that the Highway Department reported a $455 million worth of damage to the highways caused by the gas industry. The writer also estimates that the Arkansan taxpayer will probably pay more than $400 million of the estimated road repairs.The evidence offered by McClendon, the proposing writer, is enough to support his argument for hydraulic fracturing. This opinion is drawn from the fact the author covers all the pertinent facts to the case, giving sufficient reason why the practice is beneficial to the community, region, and state. The writer gives a reader the sufficient information to support his facts. Conversely, Barth, the opposing writer, does not give sufficient evidence. This writer makes arguments that are not backed up by tangible or factual evidence. The writer only gives one piece of credible evidence to support his argument.McClendon’s argument could be refuted using evidence about the creation of jobs in the future. The writer states that further development of Marcellus will support 216,000 jobs in 2015. however, this could be refuted by evidence disputing the viability of the gas resources in the identified region. Conversely, Barth’s argument that the gas industry provides insufficient funds to the state could be refuted by tax figures acquired from the state itself.
Critical Thinking Proficiency Exam