Sam Martin, author of “Recycling Can Reduce Pollution”, makes an exceptional point when expounding on the “national obsession with saving our garbage.” To begin the article, he explains how during World War II, saving empty toothpaste tubes wasn’t an imminent concern. However, he ends with a rhetorical question, the strategy that makes the reader think and puts Martin’s issue into better perspective. He states, “Recycling for the war was simple: Save now, have a better world to live in later. Sixty years later, has the message changed so much?” This strategy was used in the proper place and helped start out the main issue of the article. In this article, Sam Martin is trying to persuade Americans that we should recycle to reduce pollution, by using several rhetorical questions as well as sarcastic yet true claims, providing statistics to support to make his audience think about what is really going on, in a way making them feel guilty.
Martin begins his first section with the generalization that, “The United States is the most wasteful country on the planet!” Throughout this section he gives facts to back up this claim such as, “We dispose of 210 million tons of municipal waste every year, and the yearly costs of that disposal is just shy of $45 billion.” These statistics definitely help him make his point. He also uses specific examples to display America’s wastefulness. He explains how a trash barge motored up and down the Eastern seaboard looking for a landfill to dump it’s 3,000 tons of New York’s garbage. This example, “America’s wake-up call,” appeals to the audience and helps demonstrate the fact that this is a relevant issue that needs to be taken care of.
“What does recycling do for us on a day-to-day basis”...and “What about the fact that recycling itself is a dirty business, with loud collection trucks plying the predawn streets?” This rhetorical question addresses the opposing viewpoint, that some people think recycling to be just as bad for the environment as regular trash disposal. He sarcastically creates an image in the readers head of “loud trucks plying the predawn streets.” The reader can clearly picture these obnoxious, and massive machines prowling through our streets in the wee hours of the morning, when we are all fast asleep in our once peaceful homes. He then poses the question, “Is recycling worth it?”
This now leaves it open for the reader to decide.
Issues Paper Topic:
Recycling should not be an option for the American people. Recycling benefits everyone and helps create a better environment for all of us to live in. Recycling should be made a mandatory responsibility and duty of every American citizen.
Friday, February 29, 2008
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
You did a very thorough job of analyzing the author's tools. I feel to make your paper even stronger you should open up with some sort of segway in the introduction and maybe some transitional sentences at the beginning of each body paragraph. For example, you could provide historical background information to you introduction.
I think that you did a good job of analyzing the tools that the author used in this piece, I do think however that you could put a title in there that was a bit more catching, that was my only complaint.
well the intro needs some work. you need to start out with the general info about the topic, and not just jump in to the analysis. so get rid of quotes, and the analysis, and give some background info on recycling.
then another thing, you dont want to start your paragraphs with a quote. find a better transitions.
Post a Comment