Silent Spring Rhetorical Analysis Essay

It is a reoccurring problem that whenever an individual sets forth to do something they solely think in the present, rather than the future. This becomes a conundrum because in the end other people, or things, might be negatively affected. Rachel Carson, noted biologist, published "Silent Spring", a book that pertained to the environment and was written to change American'a attitude toward the environment around us. In "Silent Spring" Carson targets the hostile actions committed towards birds which result in other animals also being negatively impacted. Carson uses an array of rhetorical strategies, ranging from creating a serious and justified tone, to exaggerating the situation, and lastly by using rep it ion to get her point across. To begin with, the start of
the excerpt immediately presents a determined and professional tone that is evident to the readers. This is seen when she includes "The Fish and Wildlife Service" to show that this legitimate organization also has the same opinion as Carson. This opinion is expressed when it states that "parathion treated areas constitute a potential hazard to humans, domestic animals, and wildlife." Throughout the paragraph Carson adds to this serious tone by providing an anecdote that occurred in Southern India. This determined tone is able to show that Carson is passionate in order to get her point across.
The combinaries of her serious tone, with the addition of ethos does, indeed, get her point across immediately. In additional, Carson continues to weave her serious tone in the second paragrah. This is seen when she includes that the "casualty list included some 65,000 red-winged blackbirds and starlings." Carson does add to the determined tone but she also introduces a mixture of logos and pathos. The statistic, "65, 000 blackbirds and starlings", is an example of logos that proves to the reader that the parathion is immensely hindering and impacting the wildlife in Southern India. The rhetorical strategy, pathos, is seen when Carson proclaims that the additional wildlife affecyed, rabbits, raccoons, and opossums "perhaps never visited the farmers' cornfields were doomed by a judge and jury who neither knew of their existence nor cared." This makes the reader feel pity and a sense of melancholy because other living, breathing creatures were , etc with such a devastating fate, death. Lastly, Carson ends the second paragraph with a hyperbole when she states that farmers "waged their needless war on
blackbirds." This exaggeration of the situation helps transition to the final paragraph because now that she made one last comparison to the blackbirds and war she can now question the authority of individuals who allowed this "war to happen". Carson does this by employing a variety of rhetorical questions such as "Who has decided - who has the right to decide" and "Who has , are the decision that sets in motion these chains of poisonings, this ever-widening wave of death thay spreads out, like ripples when a pebble is dropped into a still pond?" The rhetorical questions help to argue her point thay these killings are not justified and should not be allowed. The death thay takes place leads to a giant ripple and explosion which impedes the rest of the people who did not partake in the choice. This ripple was compared to a still pond that breaks and is destroyed when a pebble is thrown in. In this case, the pebble would be the parathion, and the still-pond would be the birds, rabbits, raccoons, and opossums who are merely trying to live peacefully. In conclusion, the combination of pathos, logos, ethos, hyperboles, and serious diction allows the central argument to be crystal clear. Farmers should not have the choice to exterminate any living species. The mass destruction that occurs begins to affect everybody that is present in the environment. This is imperative because society needs to know that waging a war on clueless living creatures is not morally correcr. This can be applied to not only living animals, but also to humans. To sum it up, killing is not right.