The part of the chapter 1 readings that struck me the most was the inefficiency of the argument in the second essay we read, “Defying the Nalgene” by Zak Moore. I thought the essay did not employ logos, pathos, and ethos in a way that made his argument either convincing or palatable. After reading the essay, I was left with an impression of “Yuck, that was not well done.”
First of all, Moore did not use good reasoning, or as we call it, logos. He made several statements that reflected little thought and/or truth. One example is “landfills: if it is not getting more expensive to put things in them, then there is no problem” which does not take into account all the other issues associated with landfills like space, sanitation, energy wastes, etc. His mathematical logic also seems lacking when he talks about the “4 dollars and change” he spent on a pack of bottled water when tap water also costs something, but in reality the actual price difference between tap water and bottled water is huge. Another large discrepancy in the logic of his argument that I noticed was that in the beginning of the essay he starts out talking about the environment, but then in the body of the essay most of his points of refutation against opposing arguments are based on money, not the environment. He says very little about the big environmental issues related to the bottled water issue, such as the massive amounts of petroleum being used for the industry. Just because bottled water is not that expensive does not mean prices are not accurately reflecting the finite resources we are rapidly consuming and the priority we should be placing on them. To say the least, Moore’s reasoning definitely has some identifiable holes.
This ties in with his poor demonstration of ethos. Due to his lack of facts or other concrete support for the points he makes in this essay, he comes across as not very knowledgeable about the topic. In fact, to the generally environmentally concerned public (audience), he makes himself seem almost idiotic when he says “I do not understand how recycling can be that valuable” and then only follows with a cost-based justification with no comments on consumption of materials versus energy. His constant focus on monetary cost, as well as his seemingly bold statements of personal preference that he does not bother to question, justify, or balance cause his view point to seem selfishly black and white. Overall, I got the impression that he is rather egocentric and does not really care about the planet nor know very well about the topic, but merely formed his opinion based on poorly supported ideas that conveniently fit his tastes and lifestyle.
I do have to say I noticed some good use of pathos in the essay. Moore’s use of personal language and examples (e.g. “I am comfortable…” and “Aquafina tastes the best to me”) made his points seem applicable to the common reader, who also enjoy certain tastes, conveniences, and saving money. I’m not sure how to explain what else he did or said that made me feel like I agreed with at least part of what he was expressing; I could sympathize with his frustration over inefficient ways to recycle and lack of better water containers. I feel his temptation to just grab an easy, tasty, and relatively cheap bottle of water and not worry about the rest. However, I was not impressed or convinced enough by the (il)logical reasoning in his arguments nor his character to adapt quite the same stance on the bottled water issue.
Works Cited
Kirszner, Laurie G. Practical Argument. Boston: Bedford/St. Martin's, 2011. Print.
No comments:
Post a Comment