Mozart and Beethoven are musicians have been long dead but are well respected in the music

industies for their immense talent. Their fame continues even after their death. In my opinion,
assesing the talent of a musician does not have a correlation with fame, due to which I mostly
disagree with the claim that a musicians talent can be examined and assessed only after they
have been dead for a long time. I base my position on 3 main reasons. However, I do concede
that, in some cases it may be prudent to assess a persons talent generations after thier death.
 
Firstly, the fame or popularity of a musician may not ebb for generations after thier death due to
the fact that the musicians in question are extremely talented and are remembered for their
innovation, quality etc. Mozart, for example was popular even when he was alive and his fame
has not subsided even after his death decades ago. His talent cannot be judged even now due
to him being unique and innovative in his musical compositions. Every popular musician is
unique in their own right and cannot be judged by people whether during or after their death. At
the same time, current musicians also cannot be judged to be good at what they do based on
their current popularity. Talent is timeless and it does not matter when a person is being judged.
Due to the above reason, it is likely that, when the assessment takes place does not matter.

Secondly, if a person who is a musician is assessed scientifically, his/her talent might not vary

based on when the assessment takes place. Whether the assessment happens during their
lifetime or eons after their death, it may not lead to a different result. Any survey, assessment if
conducted in a scientific manner, without bias and by considering a well represented sample will
not give varying results based on when it is conducted. It is likely to remain the same and
return an equivalent result. If the above holds true, it can seriously undermine the given claim
that talent assessment of popular musicians will give "real" results only after their death.

On the other hand, it may happen that a "popular" musician of a particular generation, is only
popular for a shotrt time due to catering to only a particular group of people based on local
conditions at that time. It is possible that such an artist/musician is forgotten after a few
generations. This does not mean that the person was not talented, it just shows that popularity
and talent are unrelated and cannot be combined. It may also happen that a person may be
hugely talented but unrecognized until after their death while an untalented artist can
become very popular for a short time and then lose their fame and become forgotten.

Finally based on the above 3 reasons, it is likely that accurate talent assessment is unrelated
with time. Talent is timeless and it might not matter if the assessment takes place - during or
after the death of a musician.
 In the letter to the editor for the West Lansburg News, the author wants to put a stop to the
local developers' request of building an access road along the periphery of the wetlands. The
author reaons his recommendation based on 2 reaons which he provides in the letter. The
author bases his claim due to the reduction in sea otter population since the repel of sanctuary
status in a neighboring region. However as it stands, the autor's claim does not have substantial
evidence needed to evaluate his reasoning. Below 3 evidences are required to make a decision
on the developers request to build an access road to the wetlands.

Firstly, the author assumes that the comparision of repealing the sanctuary status is valid or
related to the current situation at hand. Building an access road to the wetlands, might not mean
that the sanctuary status of West Lansburg is under duress. For example, it is possible that
the roads can provide the well needed resource of water during firestorms or inferos during the
summer which can drastically reduce the loss of both animal and plant life in the West Lansburg
sanctuary once the roads are built. Perhaps the road is built to enable forsest officers to conduct
their daily rounds to prevent poaching of the tufted groundhog which might help reduce the
reduction in their population. If the above assumption holds water, it can seriously undermine
the authors claim.

Secondly, the authors claim of the popluation of the tufted groundhog is based on ancient
records, it may be possible that these records were not accurate and do not depict the actual
popluation of the animals in the region. It is also possible that the grounhog's population in the
sanctuary might not be effected due to building a road as they can be constructed away from
the animals place of living. The roads might even assist in the growth of thier population as
these roads will make it accessible to the forest officials who take care of these animals. If the
above assumption proves true, it can weaken the argument of the author.

Finally, it may be possible that the regions biodiversity is unreated to the tufted groundhogs,
perhaps the tufted groundhogs are an invasive species and are causing havoc to their
immediate environment and the roads being built are to prevent them from causing further
damage. It may be possible that the groundhogs overall popluation has grown over the years
leading o them hogging up all the resources of the sanctuary.

Currently as it stands, the author's argument might not hold water due to the avbove, but if the
author can provide the evidence to disprove the above statements, the decision on whether to
allow building the access roads can be evaluated properly