Carson's Rhetorical Questions

In 2004, Obama walked up to the podium at the Democratic National Convention as a political novelty. The speech he delivered established Obama as a natural leader and transformed him into a future presidential candidate. Rich in demonstrative rhetoric, its purpose was to unite the American people through nationalism. The exploration of his rhetoric and style throughout this paper will cement why the speech was beneficially identity transforming for Obama's political career.

Carson’s next argument is that the volume of new chemicals coming on the market each year, the universal use of these chemicals on farms, gardens, forests, and homes, and the lack of information on the short or long-term effect of these

Throughout his essay, Suzuki supports his arguments with specific examples. To justify his reasoning, the author uses the case of DDT, otherwise known as dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane. This chemical compound is used as an insecticide to eliminate the population of malaria-carrying mosquitoes, which it did effectively, and saved millions of lives. Unfortunately, due to unforeseen circumstances, complications arose, which led to an increase in chemicals and caused a domino effect of

Rachel Carson is a noted biologist who studies biology, a branch of science addressing living organisms, yet she has written a book called Silent Spring to speak about the harmful effects of pesticides on nature. Carson doesn’t write about birds’ genetic and physical makeup, the role of them in the animal food chain, or even how to identify their unbelievable bird songs, yet strongly attests the fight for a well developed environment containing birds, humans, and insects is just and necessary. To Carson, the war for a natural environment is instantly essential for holding on to her true love for the study of biology. Thus Carson claims that whether it be a direct hit towards birds or an indirect hit towards humans and wildlife, farmers need to understand the effects and abandon the usage of pesticides in order to save the environment by appealing to officials, farmers, and Americans in her 1962 book, Silent Spring. She positions her defense by using rhetorical devices such as rhetorical questioning to establish logos, juxtaposing ideas, and using connotative and denotative diction.

In her essay Rachel Carson targets anyone who will listen as her audience. She wants to inform human beings of the effects chemicals have on the environment. Rachel Carson’s audience had little knowledge of the effects radiation and pesticides might have on nature or to themselves. She successfully enlightened her audience to the harm man was causing to the environment not only presently, she also wrote of future ramifications. She predicts “Future historians may well be amazed by our distorted sense of proportion. How could intelligent beings seek to control a few unwanted species by methods that contaminated the entire environment…?” (Carson 615). This statement might make her audience scrutinize their actions through the eyes of future generations.

With the well-being of future generations in mind, environmental concerns have begun to establish a permanent residence atop the priority ladder for a vast array of Americans. Consequently, writers and political pundits alike are seizing this opportunity to capitalize on advocating their stance on the issue. Information, representing all positions, pours in at an unrelenting and unfathomable rate. For the average American it can be an arduous process sifting through all the rhetoric in attempt to find the real truth regarding our impact as humans on the environment; one such example is Susan Brown’s article The EPA’s Mercury Problem. In this article Brown attempts to expose hypocrisy among progressives by paralleling the Environmental Protection

The following involves the second chapter of Carson’s book, Silent Spring that was written in 1962. In this chapter Carson argues persuasively the adverse impacts of pesticides upon the environment and the risks on human health and the environment associated with these “genetic invaders” (Carson, 1962). Many of the extremely diverse people from Carson’s audience targeted were under the impression that chemicals like DDT, at that time in history, were safe for their health. Carson reconciles and attempts to persuade the public to consider the idea that DDT, which in the 1950s and 60s was one of the many chemical pesticides being manufactured and sold to

The presidential inauguration is uniquely sacramental: the peaceful transition of power is representative of the strength that has made the United States the oldest democracy on Earth. Every 4 years, a new or incumbent president delivers this address to the nation, setting forth the principles that will guide the new administration, and uniting the nation under shared commonplaces. Each president is given the opportunity to establish themselves as distinct from the presidents before them. In the past decade, we have seen two unique presidents with two drastically different visions of America deliver their message to the United States of America. While both call upon shared national values and the unity of the nation under difficult circumstances, they differ in terms of inclusion and diversity within America. Both presidents deliver compelling arguments that encourage the American people to serve their country in diverse ways.

Wilson uses his writing skills to rather accurately portray both environmentalists and anti-environmentalists. Clearly, political arguments are never going to come to an end. Each person in the world will continue to have their own opinions. Which is exactly what Wilson was trying to prove here. Nobody is going to change their opinion for the sake to annihilate arguments, humans are simply too prideful. Arguments between opposing parties are useless and a waste of time. The only thing to come of these quarrels is bitterness and anger. It’s unproductive to waste one’s time on something that cannot and will not change. As frustrating as that is, that is the reality, and it is about time that we as people to follow Wilson’s beliefs and agree to

In 17 chapters, many of which can stand alone as essays, Carson develops a deceptively simple premise: the use and overuse of synthetic chemicals to control insect pests introduces these chemicals into the air, water, and soil and into the food chain where they poison animals and humans, and disrupt the many intricate

Is Carson’s writing inspiring or discouragement? Carson’s writing helps and inspires people to solve the problem. To prove this evidence its states on paragraph 1 page 363 it explains her talking about the problem. “People were getting sick by pesticides not only adults but, kids too.” In paragraph 4 page 364 she also explains what are happening to the animals. These evidence prove she’s trying to solve the problem of what cause the pesiticles some say it's because of the people who live near by others disagree.

In the book Silent Spring, Rachel Carson’s main concern is the widespread use of synthetic pesticides and their impact on the environment. Carson concentrates on a commonly used pesticide in the 1950s called DDT. She opposes the indiscriminate spraying of DDT because it has profound consequences on the environment, humans and animals. Carson collected information about how the DDT can cause cancer in humans, harm animals such as birds and remained in the environment for long periods of time. Subsequently, the chemicals in the pesticides are extremely harmful so she tries to raise awareness and convince others that there are better alternatives.

This book was focused on the concern of pesticides that industries, along with us as individuals, have been dumping (both knowingly and unknowingly) into water. Carson was concerned that the chemicals which the farmers spread on their fields, and even the chemicals we use in our homes (among others), in the end, might come back around and harm us. The beginning of the book tells a story of a place, that was once so beautiful, turned dead and ugly due to a “strange blight that crept over the area” and destroyed everything. Later in the book, she goes on to explain that chemicals, particularly one known as DDT, are the major cause of environmental damage and the near extinction of

As we go along day-to-day, the use of pesticides has dramatically increased. As the author, Rachel Carson conveys readers an educational message, how “a town suddenly turns dark and secluded.” Demolished by the vitality of their inhabitants. The effect of this was how the human race did not take note of the effortless actions done, that drastically demolished the environment. Carson utilized figurative language to engage readers, to describe the “nostalgic life, along with the wistful.” She employs rhetorical devices, which persuades readers regarding the positive and negative effects from a different perspective. As well as, Caron presents imagery that has caused readers to be immersed into a whole other world, to display the urgency of the uses of pesticides. Within Rachel Carson’s short excerpt, “A Fable for Tomorrow,” Carson has the capability of captivating readers and taking use of phrases, in which she executes in distinctive tactics.

As some may know, the anthropocene is a period of time where human actions negatively affect the environment. What is the future of our world? How can we stop this impending anthropocene that so many fear? What human actions can be taken to save the environment? From newspapers to magazines, from television to social media, the conversation never stops, and no one can seem to agree. According to“Population Engineering” authors, Colin Hickey, Travis Reider, and Jacob Earl, placing regulations and incentives on reproduction is a great way to decrease the destruction of our environment. In a different fashion, author of, “Whose Job Is It To Fight Climate Change”, Rebecca Kukla, argues that this solution creates an ethical conflict. Because taking care of the environment is essential to our well being, Hickey, Reider, and Earl’s idea of population engineering is justified, while Kukla’s argument is not valid.