The river restoration project created to restore the San Joaquin river to its former glory, therefore It should help the salmon instead of the farmers as Daniel Weintraub explains in his article River Restoration Project Offers a Sprinkling of Hope I agree with Weintraub I believe that the river restoration project should continue for the salmon because the environment has a greater significance than some farmers losing their jobs farmers. I agree with Weintraub because he’s very credible he has been working for the Sacramento bee for fifteen years and has twenty-two years in politics. Weintraub’s article published by the Sacramento bee most of the readers includes middle and upper-class people and as for Sacramento it is the capital city of
…show more content…
Weintraub uses ethos in the article where he says “ The water district will be allowed to capture more water in flood years and save it for dry years.canals will be improved and new levies built. New land and new techniques will be employed to store reserves as groundwater that can be pulled back to the surface with wells and pumps”(1). The example represents ethos because it gives hope to the reader. This means that in the future the river will never dry up again because in flood years the water will go into water reserves for the dry years. The salmon will always have the river to go upstream because of the water preserves that they plan to build in the future. Another example of Weintraub using pathos is when he says “‘We did it because we felt that a settlement that had everyone on board would be an agreement that everybody could live with, and we could go forward working together’”(2). This example represents pathos because Weintraub suggests that there’s fairness between the salmon and the fisherman. This means that both sides get something in return out of the river project. This means that the river restoration project will let the salmon go upstream again and still help the farmers. Weintraub’s use of pathos betters McEwen use of pathos because Weintraub gives his readers hope and explains how both sides get something out of the river restoration
Weintraub uses ethos in the article where he says “ The water district will be allowed to capture more water in flood years and save it for dry years.canals will be improved and new levies built. New land and new techniques will be employed to store reserves as groundwater that can be pulled back to the surface with wells and pumps”(1). The example represents ethos because it gives hope to the reader. This means that in the future the river will never dry up again because in flood years the water will go into water reserves for the dry years. The salmon will always have the river to go upstream because of the water preserves that they plan to build in the future. Another example of Weintraub using pathos is when he says “‘We did it because we felt that a settlement that had everyone on board would be an agreement that everybody could live with, and we could go forward working together’”(2). This example represents pathos because Weintraub suggests that there’s fairness between the salmon and the fisherman. This means that both sides get something in return out of the river project. This means that the river restoration project will let the salmon go upstream again and still help the farmers. Weintraub’s use of pathos betters McEwen use of pathos because Weintraub gives his readers hope and explains how both sides get something out of the river restoration