The Exxon Valdez collided
with Bligh Reef in the Prince William Sound, Alaska, in 1989 creating one of
the largest environmental disasters in history. Millions of gallons of crude
oil were spilled into the ocean and spread over a 250km stretch, destroying
reefs, beaches and fishing villages and
killing hundreds of thousands of native animal and marine life. A disaster was
declared and billions of dollars was spent in an attempt to remove the oil,
however a series of poor management actions resulted in limited containment of the
damage and 20 years later the effects are still apparent from an ecological and
environmental perspective. Today communities affected by the disaster are still
unsustainable due to the loss of the fishing and tourism industries which had largely supported
them. Several investigations were conducted into the incident and many theories
were touted, including some that were unable to be substantiated. From these arguments
I have listed an example of both deductive and inductive reasoning.
DEDUCTIVE REASONING
Deductive argument:
- begins with a general premise which leads to a specific conclusion.
- The reasoning starts with a theory (premise 1), moves to an observation (premise 2), and finishes with the findings (conclusion).
Premise 1 – If the hulls of the Exxon Valdez are torn open whilst at sea, the oil contained within the hulls will leak out into the
surrounding ocean.
Premise 2- 8 of the 11 cargo hulls were breached upon impact
with Bligh Reef as the ship was only single hulled and the lining was only ¾ inch
thick
Conclusion - Therefore, following the impact of the Exxon
Valdez on Bligh Reef which tore open 8 hulls, up to 23 million gallons of oil escaped into the ocean of
the Prince William Sound in Alaska.
This deductive argument is valid because the conclusion logically follows from the premises.
INDUCTIVE REASONING
Inductive argument is when:
· The reasoning begins with a specific observation
(from past experience) which leads to a general conclusion (for the future).
Exxon Mobil blamed Captain Hazelwood by stating that had
he been in the control room at the time of the incident, The Exxon Valdez would
not have collided with the reef.
Therefore, only a ship’s captain has the experience
and ability to steer a ship safety through the ocean and avoid collisions at
sea.
This inductive argument is weak because in general captains are not solely responsible for
the steering of a ship; in fact this is usually a job of the helmsman who is
guided by directions from the officer of the watch and the use of navigation
equipment, including radar.
On the night of the incident the helmsman was likely
suffering from fatigue due to crew shortages and excessive workload and the 3rd
Mate who had been the officer on watch was not qualified to be steering the
ship on his own. However during the incident involving the Exxon Valdez,
Captain Hazelwood’s presence may not have mitigated the collision as the ship’s
radar had been broken for over a year prior to the disaster, an essential piece
of navigation equipment.
