Rachel Carsons Central Arguments Of Parathion
Rachel Carsons central argument of this passage deals with focusing on the negative factors "Parathion" can produce. She uses rhetorical devices such as ethos, rhetorical questions, and visual imagery all to persuade the reader that Parathion is harmful.
The first part of the passage uses ethos to appeal to authority. Carson states, "The Fish and Wildlife service haas found it necessary to express serious concern over this trend, pointing out that parathion treated areas constitute a potential hazard to humans, domestic animals, and wildlife". This supports the argument Carson has about the pesticide to be discontinued. She points out how the Wildlife center agrees and believes that parathion has the ability to harm all living things besides
the targetes blackebirds. In addition, the aurthor uderscores the importance of reason in decision making by stating her solution to this mess. Carson claims "...problem could have been solved easily by a slight change in agriculture practice". This form of logos provide Carsons solution with simoly implying to change the practice and do more work so that the pesticides dont harm more than what we want.
The second section of this passage calls attention to the obvious answer by applying a rhetorical question. This question asks, " Does Indiana still raise any boys who roam through woods or fields and might even explore the margins of a river?" to support the fact that organizations like boy scouts expouse our young ones to nature to teach the survival instincts they need. Using pesticides is something unnatural and in this caseexplains that pesticides aren't suppose to be something we should try to survive for.
Lastly, imagery is placed in order to catch the readers mental eye. Carson writes, " ...leaves that might have been eaten by the beetles...lifeless remains of the birds that fell before the unselective bludgeon of insecticidal poisons."
The first part of the passage uses ethos to appeal to authority. Carson states, "The Fish and Wildlife service haas found it necessary to express serious concern over this trend, pointing out that parathion treated areas constitute a potential hazard to humans, domestic animals, and wildlife". This supports the argument Carson has about the pesticide to be discontinued. She points out how the Wildlife center agrees and believes that parathion has the ability to harm all living things besides
the targetes blackebirds. In addition, the aurthor uderscores the importance of reason in decision making by stating her solution to this mess. Carson claims "...problem could have been solved easily by a slight change in agriculture practice". This form of logos provide Carsons solution with simoly implying to change the practice and do more work so that the pesticides dont harm more than what we want.
The second section of this passage calls attention to the obvious answer by applying a rhetorical question. This question asks, " Does Indiana still raise any boys who roam through woods or fields and might even explore the margins of a river?" to support the fact that organizations like boy scouts expouse our young ones to nature to teach the survival instincts they need. Using pesticides is something unnatural and in this caseexplains that pesticides aren't suppose to be something we should try to survive for.
Lastly, imagery is placed in order to catch the readers mental eye. Carson writes, " ...leaves that might have been eaten by the beetles...lifeless remains of the birds that fell before the unselective bludgeon of insecticidal poisons."