The first paragraph of the article contains a blatant either-or argument “A significant portion of the frack fluid returns to the …show more content…
The statement blames the drought and the land scape and animal death on hydraulic fracturing which is clearly not the case in this faulty causality fallacy. It may be unfair to the citizens who are suffering a drought to have their water restricted while hydraulic fracturing continues. The lack of precipitation is not the hydraulic fracturing or mining companies’ fault so blaming them for land scape and animal death due to the drought is …show more content…
Greenpeace.org pulls at the readers pathos strings again with “There are two types of impoundments, those that hold drilling waste, used while drilling the well bore, and impoundments for the fracking fluid. The frack fluid pits are larger and contain toxic fracking fluid. These open pits have been linked to animal deaths and health effects in humans” (paragraph 5) Labeling the larger pits as containing toxic fracking fluid may not be entirely incorrect but it does paint a unwelcoming picture even more so when continue on reading about the pits being linked to the death of animals and causing adverse health effects to people. Paragraph ten in its entirety is a pathetic appeal “Drilling wastewater is so poisonous, when a gas company that legally doused a patch of West Virginia forest with salty wastewater from a drilling operation, it killed ground vegetation within days and more than half the trees within two years. Wastewater from fracking has also been linked to livestock and family pet deaths across the country.”(Paragraph 10) Not only will the poisonous water kill the plants, trees and pets but it will also kill livestock, which for most people with livestock means their way of