Recycling is an issue that many think is only beneficial to the environment. It allows materials to be reused in other forms. However, in the article “Recycling Does Not Reduce Pollution,” Daniel Benjamin tries to persuade Americans to do away with curbside recycling by addressing “myths,” conceding to the other side, using common experiences, and using logical reasoning.
First, Benjamin addresses as subtitles in his article, what he terms the “Eight Great Myths of Recycling.” (109) By the simple fact that each of these is in a larger font, bold, and preceded by the word “myth,” it shows, even to those who quickly skim through the article, exactly what the author thinks and wants the reader to believe on the topic. Using these as subtitles easily divides the large article into small manageable pieces so that Benjamin can address everything he wants to and the reader can have all of their questions answered. Also, by having it in this form, Benjamin can address the opposing side of the argument for each part without having to go into extreme detail.
The next tool that Daniel Benjamin uses is logical reasoning. He leads the audience through easy-to-understand steps that show his way of thinking. For instance, when explaining why recycling does not protect the environment, he states “Los Angeles has estimated that due to curbside recycling, its fleet of trucks is twice as large as it otherwise would be – 800 vs. 400 trucks. This means more [mining, manufacturing, and fuel extraction] – and of course all that extra air pollution in the Los Angeles basin…” (112) Logical reasoning allows the reader to easily understand exactly why Benjamin believes what he does on this issue. By choosing logic instead of emotional, arousing one’s emotions, or ethical, touching on people’s morals, he can reach a larger audience. More people can understand when he walks the reader through step by step then when we are left to infer his exact meaning.
Possible Issues paper thesis:
There should be no vegetarians; most people need to eat meat to be healthy.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
This looks very good thus far. There is nothing I can offer thus to expand on it. By the way, your issue paper sounds quite interesting.
You look like you are on the right track. Just make sure that you are explaining yourself a little bit more . You may also want to add a little bit more to your introduction to make it longer.
I love your topic for the next paper. That will be interesting to see what research tells you on this matter.
I like your paragraph on logical reasoning
Post a Comment