Placing a vote to the city council in support or not to support on a situation with something that mayor may not cause harm to the natural environment is very hard to chose at this time. However,understanding both arguments on each side, carries valuable points. From the Malathion assessment, my evaluation on the proponent side solution is, good and seem adequately well to solve the problem, but the method chosen to be used can possibility cause more harm a. On the other hand of the opposing side, I also see what they are saying which sounds to be more of a valid reason on why the decision was made by his or, her analysis.
In all honesty with all feelings of my heart, the opposing side argument carries more valuable caring reasons and I will have to go with the opponent side on the arguments proposed. Considering the proposal of the proponents , enough evidence has not fostered whether the method proposed would be safe for the environment in consideration of time factor when in his or, her arguments from the proponent side mentions something about a long-term term factor situation.
The proposing side also worries about the value they can lose with not having tourist to visit, which is understanding to a point if that is what bring in funds to maintain that vicinity. The question is what is most important under these circumstances? I am in agreement with the opponents on the facts that the funds could be used for educational purposes on the matter at hand and possibly dig into more research on the solution plan. I believe the opponents are right when they mentioned that many people are not educated enough and would not follow the safety precautions required by the Malathion application program(Appendix B Article,