Rhetorical Analysis Of Eat More Meat And Saving The World

436 Words1 Page

In the 21st century, where climate change poses a global threat that requires the collaboration of nations and scientists, it is crucial for citizens to learn about various posed solutions so they can influence their governments to enact more efficient environmental methods. Due to the democratization of information, ordinary citizens can now join the open discussion on how the world should address this critical issue, as several journalists and non-scientists already have. One excellent example of this is George Monbiot’s article titled “Eat more meat and save the world: the latest implausible farming miracle” in which he attempts to portray fellow environmentalist Allan Savory’s methods of increasing the amount of cattle agriculture as ineffective, …show more content…

However, Savory possesses a great amount of ethos, possibly more than any other expert in the field, so Monbiot’s challenge is to persuade his readers with logos and other rhetorical techniques that Savory, with all his credentials and experience, is still incorrect. Monbiot knows that he has to use facts in order to refute Savory, so he employs logos as a key resource in his rhetoric: he persuades his scientifically-minded readers that his claim is supported by evidence; in fact, he cites over eight studies for his position. Interestingly, he only uses logos to refute Savory and not to support his own views on the best environmental policy; this method of using logos could give a subtle message to the reader that Monbiot is not here to further his agenda; rather, he only wishes to dispel ignorance and methods that he believes to be erroneous, granting him a great advantage when it comes to ethos as well. Thus, Monbiot reaches his intended audience by including logos and ethos, as well as including a scholarly and polemic tone that pervades the

Open Document