Since April, California has had a harsh season for wildfires. The largest of which have only started in the past month or two. Together, the Thomas fire in Ventura county and the Creek fire in Los Angeles county damaged or destroyed at least 1,547 homes and injured at least 4 firefighters. Richard Halsey uses the Los Angeles Times’ platform to get his opinion of the fires’ source across to California residents. He first points out some of the causes people are pointing to. Next, he looks into the standard procedure to reduce wildfire risk, and proposes a cause as to why this procedure is not working. He then propounds a handful of viable solutions to the problem, including development restrictions. Finally, he ties it all up with what California’s goals should be and where the issue truly lies- the planning department. Throughout the article, we perceive the author’s accusatory tone. His accusations do
…show more content…
He also indicates that we should be leaving 100 feet of thinned vegetation as a defensible space regulation, not bare ground. Bare ground leaves clear space for windblown embers to travel through. All of this is backed by a final rhetorical appeal- ethos. Throughout the article, Halsey has given an air of authority and deep understanding of the subject. We finally understand where he gets his knowledge from as we read, “Richard Halsey is the director of the California Chaparral Institute”. This statement appeals to ethos and makes him seem credible because we now know that he is the California Chaparral Institute’s director. Because a chaparral is a plant community found in California, he understands the plants themselves. Due to the fact that these chaparrals are what is burning, this statement backs Halsey’s argument by showing that he is educated on the topic. This was an appropriate detail to add because it significantly increased his
He also indicates that we should be leaving 100 feet of thinned vegetation as a defensible space regulation, not bare ground. Bare ground leaves clear space for windblown embers to travel through. All of this is backed by a final rhetorical appeal- ethos. Throughout the article, Halsey has given an air of authority and deep understanding of the subject. We finally understand where he gets his knowledge from as we read, “Richard Halsey is the director of the California Chaparral Institute”. This statement appeals to ethos and makes him seem credible because we now know that he is the California Chaparral Institute’s director. Because a chaparral is a plant community found in California, he understands the plants themselves. Due to the fact that these chaparrals are what is burning, this statement backs Halsey’s argument by showing that he is educated on the topic. This was an appropriate detail to add because it significantly increased his