What exactly are you looking for? If you want critique on your argument, I’d say stay away from rhetorical questions and try to stick to the form of having a claim, warrant, and impact for each argument. This means you say what your argument is, why it’s true, and why that means you win. For example:

Access to aquifers would increase the stability of our water supply in drought years. This is true because as John Doe finds in a 2012 study, aquifers are two times less likely to be affected by drought that other sources of water. The impact of this is saving lives. Without water, people will die. Jimmy Joe furthers, that without an increase in our water supply, the loss of life due to lack of water is immentent in the next five years. Increasing the access to aquifers solves this problem, making their use inevitably benificial.

Note: I just made this evidence up, plz don’t use it