During the 1940s powerful chemicals, such as DDT were used to remove crop-destroying insects. In Rachel Carson’s “The Obligation to Endure”, she argues that harmful chemicals are not only killing insects but also modifying its surroundings(604, par.1). She develops this argument using poignant diction, explaining that the environment take milleniums to adjust and that human pollution is advancing further than the Earth can keep up thus causing irreversible damages to the environment. Carson’s “The Obligation to Endure” comes off as bias because of the over usage of bleak language. Although her argument offers effective emotional appeals, overall her argument did not provide sufficient scientific evidence and lacks credibility. “The Obligation
…show more content…
5) give the reader a sense that we have no control over these chemicals we are making. These ideas add on to the alertness the reader must be feeling.
Carson’s credibility throughout the writing is questionable. Although she uses trustworthy names and respectable people in their fields, she only quotes them on things they have said, not really any research they have done that could help her argument. For example CArson quotes Albert Schweitzer, “Man can hardly even recognize the devils of his own creation”, while this does add to the fear aspect of the argument it, factually it does not. This technique is used throughout her essay on multiple occasions only adding to the emotional appeal and lacking in the research put behind it.
In conclusion Carson’s argument demonstrated strong emotional diction that made the audience aware of the dangers of chemicals, yet by focusing too much on the emotional appeals it overshadowed the credibility of the writing making her argument questionable and
5) give the reader a sense that we have no control over these chemicals we are making. These ideas add on to the alertness the reader must be feeling.
Carson’s credibility throughout the writing is questionable. Although she uses trustworthy names and respectable people in their fields, she only quotes them on things they have said, not really any research they have done that could help her argument. For example CArson quotes Albert Schweitzer, “Man can hardly even recognize the devils of his own creation”, while this does add to the fear aspect of the argument it, factually it does not. This technique is used throughout her essay on multiple occasions only adding to the emotional appeal and lacking in the research put behind it.
In conclusion Carson’s argument demonstrated strong emotional diction that made the audience aware of the dangers of chemicals, yet by focusing too much on the emotional appeals it overshadowed the credibility of the writing making her argument questionable and