He uses pathos to draw the audience emotions to actually think about what these lobsters are going through while being cooked, this rhetorical strategy is incredibly convincing in this case to the readers. He states actions the lobsters take as they are being thrown into a cooking pot, ‘The lobster will sometimes cling to the container’s sides or even to hook its claws over the kettle’s rim like a person trying to keep from going over the edge of a roof.(..)you can usually hear the cover rattling and clanking as the lobster tries to push it off. Or the creature’s claws scraping the sides of the kettle as it thrashes around.” This metaphor he uses paints a horrific image for the audience as they read it, he makes a point that some people often mistakenly boil lobsters in salt water instead of tap water and by doing so that smothers then instantly to death. All of what he explaining is set in place to make the reader really think about the whole cooking process that these creatures are put through. A lobster is no dog, cat or an animal that people normally care about their feelings but they are still animals and should not be exposed to animal cruelty just for human gustatory pleasure. …show more content…
He says "when it comes to defending the lobsters, even to myself, I have to acknowledge that I have an obvious selfish interest in this belief, I like to eat certain kinds of animals, and would like to keep doing so" (64) what he is saying here is aside of the fact killing and eating animals but he thinks more into it before doing so and therefore he continues to do so. Every aspect of this article really makes the audience consider the