Exercise 3.1 (pg 100) questions

1. I personally do not think Guillebaud and Hayes supported their thesis the best they could. They mentioned that 50% of all pregnancies were unplanned but did not provide evidence of that. I also would like to see evidence that countries with controlled populations like China have more crops, fish and fossil fuels. It was kind of all over the place to me. I would have like to have had statics that back up the statement of "no increase in per capita wealth or other presumed essentials".
2. a) I think some of the statistics were useful. The statistic of the 2 billion people that live in poverty was useful to me. b) The decline in the fertility rate in Iran seems relevant. That the couples are educated about family planning and the fertility rate went down. c)I don't think that the statistics were very thorough. I think they were very vague. 
3. They did appeal to logic by getting me to think logically that the more people there are, the less resources. Although I think they tried to appeal to compassion, it didn't work for me. They also appealed to authority stating the UK doctors should beak a deafening silence. It just wasn't effective to me or appropriate.
4. I did not find the refutation very effective. It was not convincing to me and lacked evidence. They could have expanded further about why population control does not work or how meeting women's unmet fertility needs and choices does work. 
5. I feel like the overall structure of the piece was confusing and hard to follow. I didn't feel like it could have changed my mind or convinced me of anything. To me it did not follow the Classical argument structure very well. I don't think they ever established a clear context for the problem. It was confusing to me. It did not engage me or keep my attention. It could have been strengthened by introducing the problem better. In the book it states that the heart of the Classical argument is the evidence and then reinforcing it by persuasive appeals. I just didn't see the evidence it needed. to be convincing.