In an article published in Consumers’ Research Magazine entitled, “Sport Utility Vehicles Do Not Harm the Environment,” John Merline defends the consumer’s SUV purchases. This article was published in response to a recent dramatic increase in consumption of Sport Utility Vehicles; “In this decade, SUVs went from 5% of all registered cars on the road to 11%.” Apparently, consumers are happy with their four-wheel-drive, family-transporting machines; however, there are many protesters that are downright angry, and passionately against the use of them. They feel that using these machines damage the environment by wasting gasoline and contributing to global warming; they have also radically said that driving a Sport Utility Vehicle is not in keeping with the teachings of Jesus Christ and that it supports terrorism. Due to these activist’s claims, consumers are forced to make a decision of whether or not purchasing a SUV will hurt their beloved Earth. In this article, John Merline is trying to persuade American consumers to not be apprehensive about purchasing SUVs by using imagery of war, downplaying his opponent’s arguments, using statistics from scientific studies, and flattery.
In Merline’s opening paragraph, he uses his first persuasive tool—imagery of war. He carefully selected the words, “[…] environmentalists have launched a ferocious campaign aimed at disarming American drivers of Sport Utility Vehicles (SUVs).” Choosing the words launched, aimed, disarming, and even American, cause the reader to subconsciously associate environmentalists with attacking Americans. Merline’s American audience has a long tradition of pride and freedom; He probably is trying to associate his opponents with taking away freedom, because it arouses in the reader not only resentment but interest in how to retaliate. He could have simply pointed out that environmentalists do not like SUVs because they hurt the environment, but he likely wanted to start out his article with the reader associating environmentalists with all the awful connotations of war. Merline’s use of war imagery probably leaves his audience feeling like their freedom is threatened and interested in reading the rest of his article.
Merline uses another powerfully persuasive tactic—downplaying his opponent’s arguments. In this example, he brings up an opposing argument and then tears it down by writing, “[…] while SUVs generally consume more gasoline than do cars, they are not the rapacious gas hogs critics suggest. […] Indeed, the most popular SUVs are midsize ones, which get on average 20.7 mpg, according to the Oak Ridge National Laboratory. That’s just 5 mpg less than a large car, and just 3 mpg less than an average minivan.” The likely reason he introduces opposing arguments is because the reader is already thinking these their head, and if Merline does not mention these arguments then the reader will probably discount his arguments. He does not force or threaten the reader, but persuades by logically proving his point by proving his opponents wrong. Merline systematically brings up opposing arguments and then proves them wrong throughout his article.

Topic:
Save the rain forest; slow down lumber companies by passing legislature against the amount of acres they are allowed to cut down