The Silent Spring Rhetorical Analysis

The history of life on earth could be thought of as a record of living things interacting with their surroundings; for most of history, this has meant that life molds over time by the environment it inhabits; however, very recently, humans have become capable of altering the environment in significant ways (Carson 49). Marine Biologist, Rachel Carson, in her environmental sciences book, The Silent Spring, documents the detrimental effects on the environment by the indiscriminate use of pesticides. Carson argues vigilantly in an attempt to persuade her extremely diverse and expansive global audience, under the impression that chemicals, such as DDT, were safe for their health, that pesticides are in fact detrimental for their health. Through

Carson writes with meticulous detail with almost all of her scientific facts and explanations. She compels her readers with keywords and phrases to gravitate her audience towards her side of the argument. Carson gives an example explaining that “in this now universal contamination of the environment, chemicals are the sinister and little-recognized partners of radiation in changing the very nature of the world –the very nature of its life…chemicals sprayed on croplands or forests or gardens lie long in the soil, entering into living organisms, passing from one to another in a chain of poisoning and death”(43). To begin, Carson skillfully argues her point by describing chemicals as “sinister” which grabs her reader’s attention, and presents her evidence comprehensibly so that her variety of readers feel well informed, rather than stunned and confused. Carson could have simply stated that chemicals can transfer from soil to living creatures and save time without disclosure; however, she instead reaches the decision to describe the process with powerful, yet understandable vocabulary that provides emotional appeal in her argument. By presenting scientific evidence and explanations in a compelling and sentimental manner, Carson’s audience is able to connect with her argument. Every fact and description that she gives deems useful in her argument that pesticides should not be used for the treatment of