Debunking Claims: A Critique of Anti-Fracking Arguments

Ever since knowledge of fracking has entered the common domains, people have been bombarded with arguments for or against the process. Fracking is a process in which a drill is used to drill into the earth and extremely high-pressure water, combined with sand and chemicals, is used to force natural gas out of the ground to be used in any number of ways. The article being analyzed in this instance is firmly within the anti-fracking camp. Unfortunately, the article is also very much unreasonable mostly for the lack of evidence for its claims. The target audience appears to be people who either haven’t taken a stance on the issue yet or to motivate people who are already anti-fracking into being more proactive. The effectiveness of this portion of the article is well above the rest of it, as it uses evocative language to describe how potentially harmful fracking could be. This is most apparent in the thesis statement, “If drillers can’t extract natural gas without destroying landscapes, endangering the health of families, and

Rather, it would be if a counter-argument existed. There is no acknowledgement of the other side of the fracking debate, the pro-fracking side. There is no concession to or list of pros for the fracking industry and its supporters. The author makes no note of anything remotely positive about fracking, not even in passing. The article is so staunchly anti-fracking that it declines to even look at fracking in any manner of light that could be construed as positive. While ignoring the other side of an argument may work in some cases, in the case of a persuasive article or essay, such as this one, then it is entirely unreasonable. Even if the target audience isn’t the pro-fracking side, an attempt to acknowledge and dispute the other side’s claims should still be made. Instead of this, there is no acknowledgement of any side except the author’s, leading to a biased and unreasonable