The Obligations to Endure
Professor Norford
ENC 1101
3 March 2014
Word Count: 828
The Obligation to Endure Carson writes this essay informing us about pesticides and chemicals farmers use on their crops that can danger our echo system. The pollution man is creating “is for the most part irrecoverable; the chain of evil it initiates not only in the world that must support life but in living tissues is for the most part irreversible.” (Carson 2) There are many different ways that pollution can harm the environment, from the nuclear explosions discharging toxic chemicals into the air, to the pesticides sprayed on plants that kills vegetation and sickens cattle. I think Carson writes an effective argument because she gives us lots of facts and examples of how these pesticides are hurting our environment and how we can stop polluting and damaging our environment. Cason develops her argument by first explaining the chain reaction of the pollutions and chemicals “man’s inventive mind” (Carson 4) has created. Then she goes on to explain that “it would require not merely the years of a man’s life but the life of generations” (Carson 5) to fix the damage that has already been caused. Carson goes on telling us how sprays, dusts, and aerosols contaminate the whole entire environment.
Carson gives a very strong argument explaining how humans are damaging our ecosystem. Carson believes the people that are using these pesticides are ignorant and are abusing these chemicals. I think Carson’s argument is a little hard to follow because she goes so in depth and uses scientific words that are hard to understand. I believe if she would’ve made this argument simpler to read it would have made it a lot more effective and easier to follow along with. I think she drags her argument out a lot, and she is trying too hard to sell her argument instead of just getting to the point. Carson appeals to our emotions by saying these chemicals “pass mysteriously by underground streams until they emerge and,
ENC 1101
3 March 2014
Word Count: 828
The Obligation to Endure Carson writes this essay informing us about pesticides and chemicals farmers use on their crops that can danger our echo system. The pollution man is creating “is for the most part irrecoverable; the chain of evil it initiates not only in the world that must support life but in living tissues is for the most part irreversible.” (Carson 2) There are many different ways that pollution can harm the environment, from the nuclear explosions discharging toxic chemicals into the air, to the pesticides sprayed on plants that kills vegetation and sickens cattle. I think Carson writes an effective argument because she gives us lots of facts and examples of how these pesticides are hurting our environment and how we can stop polluting and damaging our environment. Cason develops her argument by first explaining the chain reaction of the pollutions and chemicals “man’s inventive mind” (Carson 4) has created. Then she goes on to explain that “it would require not merely the years of a man’s life but the life of generations” (Carson 5) to fix the damage that has already been caused. Carson goes on telling us how sprays, dusts, and aerosols contaminate the whole entire environment.
Carson gives a very strong argument explaining how humans are damaging our ecosystem. Carson believes the people that are using these pesticides are ignorant and are abusing these chemicals. I think Carson’s argument is a little hard to follow because she goes so in depth and uses scientific words that are hard to understand. I believe if she would’ve made this argument simpler to read it would have made it a lot more effective and easier to follow along with. I think she drags her argument out a lot, and she is trying too hard to sell her argument instead of just getting to the point. Carson appeals to our emotions by saying these chemicals “pass mysteriously by underground streams until they emerge and,
Cited: Carson, Rachel. “The Obligation to Endure.” Practical Argument/ A Text and Anthology, John E. Sullivan III. Boston/ New York: Bedford? St. Martin’s, 2011. Pg. 789-794