Why are there so many mice in London?

Old buildings are easy for mice to access

Question: Why are there so many mice in London?
Position‹3 of 5›: London's architecture suits mice
Argument: Old buildings are easy for mice to access

London is a city with canals, waterways, and lots of old building with small spaces for mice to nest in.

The argument

Mice are attracted to confined spaces and food. In some parts of London, the buildings are residential areas above shops and restaurants, offering mice the perfect combination of an abundance of food to eat and places to hide. When the shop below is closed at night, mice can move through the walls to the restaurant below, avoiding the tenants in the residence above. In the morning, when the tenants wake, the mice return to the residence above to escape the tenants working in the restaurant. Canals tend to restrict the movement of mice, though they can swim. Shops and residences near canals are more likely to have mice infestations because of this. Even when mice are removed from a house near a canal, they may use the canal or the banks of the canal as an escape route to move to a new, safe area. The tube system in London is low-traffic as far as people are concerned, allowing mice to use the tunnels as an underground highway system so long as they avoid the trains. With so many places to hide and countless ways to get there, architecture has made eradicating mice in London next to impossible.

Premises

[P1]Mice thrive where they have abundant food sources and confined spaces to hide and travel through. [P2] London's architecture — residences above shops and restaurants, proximity to canals, and the tube tunnel network — provides mice with both plentiful food and countless interconnected hiding and travel routes. [P3] These architectural features make mice nearly impossible to eradicate, allowing their populations to flourish. [C] Therefore, London has so many mice because its architecture is uniquely suited to them.

Counter-arguments

While the architecture of London does contribute to the mice's ability to thrive in London, it does not explain how they became so prevalent in the first place. There are many places in London that do not have any of these architectural or environmental qualities, meaning architecture can't account for the mouse infestation in these areas.

Rejecting the premises

[Rejecting P1] True of mice everywhere, and therefore not distinguishing. Every dense city offers food and cavities, so the premise cannot explain why this one in particular would stand out. [Rejecting P2] The features named are common to old European cities and to any city with a metro system. Mixed residential-and-catering buildings, waterways and tunnels are not peculiar to London, so the comparison the conclusion needs is never actually made. [Rejecting P3] 'Nearly impossible to eradicate' overstates and does not follow. Difficulty of control turns as much on waste management, building maintenance and pest-control funding as on the age of the buildings. [Rejecting C] The conclusion explains persistence rather than origin. Architecture may help a population survive without accounting for how it established itself, and areas of the city lacking these features report infestations too.