The article is very effective. It accomplishes the author’s goal of persuading the readers to feel as the author feels about the situation. In the article, the author shares her negative opinion concerning Nestle’s attempt to export the water from the already-lacking-water area of Massachusetts.
The article fist establishes the respectable ethos by stating that the author of the article is a water conservation consultant. She is also a resident of the state that article’s subject lies. She is directly involved with the problem. The article, then, sets the pathos of disgust and deceiving by showing the dirty past of Nestle. It also draws the pathos of empathy towards the residents by describing their struggle of not having enough water. The article also uses logos by stating the percentages of the residents who are dependent on the water reserve that Nestle wishes to take over. Along with these three, the author uses aggressive dictions to turn the readers’ hearts to her. She states that Nestle has “quietly” surveyed the area and it had “aggressively pursued” the idea that many residents see as “red”. She also leads the readers to think by asking numerous rhetorical questions, such as, “Since when [has the water supply] restored to such good health that we now have a surfeit of naturally clean freshwater ready for shipping to bottle-chugging out-of-staters…?”
As I mentioned before, I believe the article is very effective. The author’s powerful, strong standing on her opinion effectively persuades the readers to view the situation with her eyes.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment