Rhetorical Analysis Is the atmosphere really falling apart right above us, or is it just a myth? Some people like Jain Ankit believe we are to blame for the atmosphere’s demolition as she supports her belief in the article “Ozone Layer Depletion – Causes, Effects and Solutions.” Others such as Edmund Contoski in his article “Global Warming Is a Myth” back up the idea that we do not make as big of an impact that most of us believe. Ankit Jain’s article is more persuasive because of her effective use of Ethos. Logos, and Pathos. In Jain Ankit’s article “Ozone Layer Depletion – Causes, Effects and Solutions” , she uses the Ethos method effectively by using simple, unbiased writing structure that is easy to understand to help her …show more content…
Ankit’s only example of Pathos in the article is in the quote “Our individual efforts will go a long way in saving the earth’s blanket and keep our planet earth livable for us and our future generations” (paragraph .15). Even in this quote, there is not a strong appeal to emotion, and there is almost none contained in the article. Contoski’s article has a stronger use of Pathos as he uses more meaningful language as if he is speaking directly to the audience.He uses his language much better than Ankit to make the audience feel the way he wants them to. A great example of Pathos in Contoski’s article is “Surely there was plenty of evidence, for decades, that the system was failing: food shortages, declining life expectancy, increased infant mortality, low standards of living, primitive hospitals, and sanitation facilities lagging far behind those in Western Europe and America—not to mention pollution far worse than in the West” (Hidden Political Agenda, Paragraph .2). Contoski uses this information to make you feel sympathy and lure you to agree with his claim that global warming is a …show more content…
Her word choice and sentence structure portrays a reasonable argument. In the quote “The main things that lead to destruction of the ozone gas in the ozone layer. Low temperatures, increase in the level of chlorine and bromine gases in the upper stratosphere are some of the reasons that leads to ozone layer depletion” (Paragraph .3) represents Ankit’s theoretical language, it gives the audience that the information is logical. In Contoski’s article, he uses the Logos method very effectively. Contoski cites many facts, uses many different analogies and uses abstract language to infer to the audience that his argument is correct. The quote “During the 20th century, the earth warmed 0.6 degree Celsius (1 degree Fahrenheit), but that warming has been wiped out in a single year with a drop of 0.63 degree C. (1.13 F.) in 2007. A single year does not constitute a trend reversal, but the magnitude of that temperature drop—equal to 100 years of warming—is noteworthy” (paragraph .2) shows Contoski uses facts to his advantage and uses a more complicated word choice than Ankit to convince his audience of his
A similar message that appears in his book that appeared in the aforementioned speech was the impact of the media speculation. The book addresses this in two examples. One was presented with the news of a lawsuit that an island called Vantu would file against the EPA; yet the lawsuit would never move forward due to it only serving a purpose to launder money and raise awareness to global warming that was never proven to affect the island. The other was shown to be environmental scientist who received their funding from environmental organizations, such as NERF in the book. These scientists would often have to go against their findings and report what the organizations wanted them to, or possibly lose their funding. Additionally, the book profoundly took opposition to the claim of global warming. This is presented in the form of the main character, Peter Evans, who has been manipulated into believing everything that the media has told him about global warming. It isn’t until John Kenner is introduced, that Peter begins got learn the truth about global warming. The author uses specific evidence to back his claims, specifically he uses a wide array of resources to verify his claim that Antarctica is not in fact melting, but getting colder and thickening. Furthermore, another essential concept that that book introduces is environmental extremists, or bioterrorism. These characters in the book would stop at nothing to make sure that everyone believed in global warming, and tried to destroy parts of the world to succeed in their mission. Bioterrorists are best represented as a warning of what could happen if people continue to buy into the media’s lies without having conclusive evidence to back up their
Reputable environmentalist Janisse Ray in her narrative “Altar Call to True Believers” uses pathos, logos, and ethos efficiently to create a convincing kyros for her essay. To start off she uses ethos. She admits her own faults, capturing the reader’s attention as well as “playing” upon the readers trust and understanding. Next she uses pathos. Ms. Ray identifies with her audience and displays her own background to gain more of the reader’s empathy. Lastly, she capitalizes on logos. Janisse logically forges an ideological circumstance for what, how, and why the people of planet earth should be doing to help the environment. In this essay I will argue that Ray’s rhetoric succeeds due to the empathy she establishes with her audience by self depreciation.
Lindzen begins his piece by asserting that there isn't, and never will be, static, unchanging climates on planets with fluid envelopes. Throughout this article, he ponders why there has been an increase in alarm over climate change in the past few years. At the beginning of the article, he states that the increase in alarm is because the public has become scientifically illiterate, which, in turn, makes them more susceptible to being taken advantage of by people of higher status. He continues on by saying that the panic over climate change is falsely placed and that the climate is and has constantly been changing over time. He gives supportive examples of this through climate changing events that have occurred throughout the centuries. Also, according to Lindzen, findings on climate change are problematic because they are based on computer models. He claims that the data conflicts with the models, and that scientists “correct” the data to agree with the models, which points to some level of corruption in climate science. Although Lindzen does give reasons that he believes climate change may be over exaggerated, he keeps going back to another reason. Throughout the article, he ind...
“How to poison the earth” by Linnea Saukko can be seen in two different aspects. The first one would be by looking at it in a literal way, in which it will make it a very harsh, inhumane and cold text. On the other hand, it could be seen as a satire, sarcastic and ironic text in which Saukko expects to catch the reader’s attention. Saukko exaggerates the sarcasm, and satire in her writing in order to make the readers realize and understand the main purpose of her essay, which is to warn readers about threats to the future of our planet.
Pathos: is an approach that appeals to the audience’s emotions. Including specific examples showing how tragedies have been avoided thanks to first responders being trained. Also, included in Pathos are examples on how tragedies have happen due to the misunderstanding
In his essay, “Global Warming is Eroding Glacial Ice,” Revkin is arguing that global warming is constantly changing the ...
McKibben’s writing style makes it difficult for readers to truly understand the argument he presents; therefore, they are gullible to accepting his opinions. McKibben embarks on a rampage in this article, seeming to continuously ramble on with concepts that fly over the average person’s head. He uses words such as “Class C forest,” “A-2 forest,” “peak-load electricity,” “geothermal drilling,” and “hydrogen sulfide emissions.” McKibben must not be thinking of his audience because for the audience to grasp his argument thoroughly he needs to define these concepts well. If he were writing for a science magazine in which his audience would be well educated in environmental issues, his writing style would be accepted. But this article appeared in Rolling Stone where the audience is not educated on these issues. His bitter and intense voice makes the reader feel as if th...
The environment has become a popular topic this year due to our on-going drought. It has always been a serious issue; something Saukko informs us in her sarcastic essay “How to Poison the Earth”. She uses sarcasm and irony in her essay hoping her readers will do the complete opposite of what she is saying because of the stress she puts on the harming chemicals we use every day. We do not appreciate our environment and take it for granted. This ideal is what Ehrlich's essay “Chronicles of Ice” focuses on by using analogies and scientific definitions to describe aspects of glaciers. The melting of the glaciers introduces us to the topic of global warming and how our society is doing nothing to stop it from getting worse. Gawande’s “The Cancer-Cluster
Will this century mark the decline of society? Is the future safe from the mistakes of mankind? In “Learning How to Die in the Anthropocene”, Roy Scranton suggests that the question we should be asking ourselves about global warming is not whether it exists or how it can be stopped, but rather how are we going to deal with it. The purpose of the article is to convince everyone that current life is unsustainable, and that nothing can be done to reverse the process; we must acknowledge that the future will be drastically different and plan in advance if civilization is to keep moving forward. Dr. Scranton develops a realistic tone that relies on logos, pathos, and ethos appeals to persuade readers of his claim. Scranton sufficiently backs up
Bill McKibben's "The Environmental Issue from Hell" argues that climate change is a real and dire concern for humanity. His essay deals with the methods and persuasive arguments needed to spur American citizens and the government on to change to more eco-friendly choices. The arguments he proposes are based largely upon emotional appeals calling for empathy and shame, and examples of what in our daily lives is adding to the changes we're seeing in the climate.
The author uses ethos to make his article sound more credible, however, when he states “boats killed 10 manatees in Brevard waters last year” it sounds trustworthy since there is a number of how many manatees were killed by boats last year but the author does not state his source of where he got this number. For pathos, “Manatee advocates fear such actions will be repeated statewide if the manatee is downlisted” this sentence appeals to manatee advocates and other readers. It is showing that manatees advocates are afraid if nothing is done about the downlisting of the manatees, there is a possibility that the manatees can go
Climate Change has become an incredibly controversial topic because of the bid to win votes. As with any successful political party, capital and supporters are needed to fund and support campaigns and activities to secure votes. The Democratic and Republican parties have taken opposite sides of the ring regardless of scientific proof. In relation to global warming, the Democrats represent the environmentalists in the green corner and the Republicans represent the current energy tycoons in the red corner. The two opposing parties are simply trying to one up each other with each rhetorical combination thrown. The more irrational or misconstrued the rhetoric, the more the crowd rooting for each fighter reacts and the more independents rally to
The opposing party would like you to believe that the scientists are 90% certain that extreme heat periods will increase worldwide. They say that this is causing increased danger of wildfires, human deaths, and algal blooms. This of course is utterly false on many different levels. These scientists that the opposing party was actually paying a select group of scientists to testify for them meaning the “90% of Scientists” were actually lying because they were being paid off. The real majority agreed against these paid scientists, but they were not included in the vote for agreement in this statistic. These statistics are not nearly as dire as described because they won’t happen. This is because the CO2 emissions are no where near to where they are portrayed in the Al Gore video.
Picture this: Your freezer breaks down. The temperature inside the freezer rises. The ice cubes start to melt and turn into liquid. The freezer starts to flood because of all the liquid from the ice cubes. Now, imagine that your freezer is the Earth. What your freezer has just experienced is similar to what happens to the Earth during global warming. Those who believe in global warming warn that it causes a significant rise in temperature in the Earth's atmosphere and oceans, but after doing much research on the topic, I have discovered that the threat of global warming is a bogus one. If the Earth's atmosphere was truly rising in temperature, we would see a significant rise in ice sheets melting, just like the ice cubes melted, but that is not occurring. In saying that global warming is occurring, scientists are just exaggerating that fact.
Global Warming One of the most substantial problems in the world today is global warming. This gradual warming of the earth is in occurrence at an extremely slow rate but it is happening. Many scientists believe that as human’s work and release greenhouse gases into the earth’s atmosphere, it can become dangerous for the long lasting life of humans and our environment. “Unless we take immediate action, the impacts of global warming will continue to intensify, grow ever more costly and damaging, and increasingly affect the entire planet - including you, your community, and your family” (“Global Warming Impacts”).