Global warming has been in the spotlight of environmental problems for quite some time now. Different viewpoints, ideas, and opinions have been expressed on what should be done about this problem. Solutions have been proposed and enacted, but the real question is whether or not they are actually helping. In this article, Daniel Benjamin is trying to persuade Americans that recycling does not reduce pollution by using goodwill and by applying to logic.
The first Rhetorical tool which Benjamin uses is that of goodwill. This just means taking into account the audience’s previous beliefs. He does this in a very organized way. He has split his essay up into eight sections. Each section states a myth (this would be the audiences belief) and then through facts and ideas proves these myths wrong. These myths are proven wrong by what Benjamin calls fact. By doing this he is able to take into account the audience but then show them why they are wrong. This tool is so effective because the audience feels as if the writer is not attacking them but sympathizing with them. They feel as if Benjamin used to be on the same page as them but after all of his research he has come to the finding that these common beliefs are misconceptions. The audience takes it as more of a, “look what I found out I want you to know this too,” rather than a, “you’re stupid, I cannot believe you actually though that.”
The next tool which Benjamin uses applies mostly to logic. Throughout his article he presents numbers and equations that only make sense. With this simple information in front of the reader they are more likely to be convinced, because after all they have actual proof. Although these statistics and facts are very generalized the reader does not have to know this. Most of the ideas which he uses to prove the myths wrongs seem so basic and common sense that the reader would look like a fool to even question the reliability.
For my issue paper I am thinking about looking at the breaking up of icepacks and how this is affecting polar bears.
1 comment:
I like this a lot! Some suggestions I have are:
-Include examples of the tools that you're analyzing
-The intro is good but try to be more clear when you say "the real question is whether or not they are actually helping". Who is "they" and what do you mean by helping?
-I would take out "using goodwill" in your thesis and just say "taking into account the audience's previous beliefs"
Good job focusing on the tools that he uses. Your paper will be great!
Post a Comment