Musicians are generally remembered for a long time even after they are dead, this is the

power of music. A musician is popular not entirely because of his songs, but also because of
his nature towards others. I agree with the claim that a popular musicians is accurately
assessed after his death for several generations, not because of his fame at that time.
As the days are passing, creativity in all art forms is proligating, so a song produced many
generations before is also valued along with the mordern day songs, this shows the real
talent of a prolific musician. For instance, a song produced several genrations before can be
inappropriate to the current audience or no longer be pleasing to current generation, then
these songs does not represent a perspicacious musician. The songs have to be popular in
the new generations as well which shows the talent of the musician.
Sometimes, it is possible that a musician may get famous by chance, i.e. he may have only
few compositions which were eccentric and got popularity because of the humorous content
not because of true musical elements. Accoriding to this point, a musician composing music
consisting of funny lyrics may be attractive at first but gets dull after a certain period of time,
so in the future generations the musician will not be recognized because his work is not
promising. In this way if a musician is judged after his death for several generations, that
tells the real talent of that musician.
Some might argue that, for a musician to be popular in his generation, his compositions have
to be creative and pleasing to get noticed which has nothing to do with the fame. These
people might also argue that the genre of song may not be much popular in the coming
generations, which has nothing to do with the talent of a musician. These people are not
considering the possibility of nepotism, favouritism, because a well established musician
would want his son to be a good musician like him and will favour him in the music industry.
This sometimes leads to fame of undeserved musicians and thus not providing an honest
assessment.
I feel that musicians should be correctly assessed only generations after their death,
becasue it rules out the possibility of favouritism and nepotism. This approach also helps in
finding prolific and perspicacious musicians.
The author theorizes the tufted groundhog' s population is declining in West Lansburg and in
order to preverve the region's biodiversity and ensuring a healthy environment, the West
Lansburg council should not allow the roads to be built along the coastal wetlands. The
author also mentions that in Neighbouring Eastern Carpenteria population of sea otter has
decreased after revoking its sanctuary status in 1978. In order to strenghten or weaken the
arguement some additional evidences are required.
The author claims that by prohibiting construction of roads along the coastal wetlands, the
decline in tufted groundhog's will stop, in order to prove this claim, the author have to take
into account the demographics of West Lansburg. It may be possible that the demographics
of West Lansburg have changed a lot, the environment which was favourable to groundhogs
now may be inimical to them, if this is the case then stopping construction of road along the
coastal wetlands will not help in preserving the groundhog's population.
The author have not taken into consideration the amount of predators in the West Lansburg,
it may be possible that the number of predators eating tufted groundhog have increased
manifold than the earlier times, which is causing decline in the poulation of groundhogs. In
order to assess the validity of author's claim, he has to provide evidence that the proportion
of predators to groundhogs have remained same. If nowadays predators are more in West
Lansburg then prohibiting construction of roads will not stop decreasing population of tufted
groundhog.
In Neighbouring Eastern Carpenteria, sea otters have declined after repeal of its sanctuary
status in 1978, the author is comparing situation of sea otters to the groundhogs, the author
left out the possiblity that, in 1978 it may be possible that throughout the globe population of
sea otters was decreasing irrespective of their sanctuary status. If this is the case then
author cannot compare the situation of sea otters to groundhogs and cannot conclude that
removal of sanctuary decreases population of species in that area. So, specific evidence for
similar situation of sea otters and groundhogs is required and if it does not comes out to be
similar, then prohibiting construction of roads will not help in stopping decreasing population
of tufted groundhogs.
All in all, specific evindence for demographics of West Lansburg, amount of predators in
West Lansburg and similarity of situation of sea otters and tufted groundhogs is required for
supporting author's claim. If these evidenecs are provided the then the author's claim is hard
to refute.