RJA #10b: Argument

Ethos: I feel like my audience would have a hard time finding appeals based on ethos to be persuasive because of the appeals to credibility and authority that I may have pointed out in my argument becuase of the fact that all of the information I am gathering is coming mostly from government released documents. How can one say that getting information regarding the world's ecosystems from the goverment, isnt credible? Me being the author will try and make it more understanding and believable for the author because I can prove the point using visual aids and numbers found on the web

Pathos: The audience may in fact find it easier to appeal based on pathos because it deals with emotion. Because my topic is on a very sideable environmental topic people that are very environmentaly friendly may find a very emotional way with very good reasons to side with the side that deforestation is "killing" our world's ecosystems.

Logos: If I support my claims, reasons, and evidence enough it may be very difficult for my reading audience to find appeals based on logos [logic] to be persuasive because my goal is to back these claims and such enough that my logic and all my readers logic match up to create a very good understanding with what is going on with deforestation and what we can do to reverse this.

Reason 1: In defense of deforestation, logging companies and other companies that profit from deforestation argue that they replant that which is lost at a rate faster than they are cutting down forests. Neither side of this issue can guarantee that their proposed plans will eliminate population growth or forest destruction, so the effects of both will inevitably build until the planet cannot sustain the amount of life it currently supports, and mass extinction of a form never before seen will ensue.

-Evidence 1: For those pro clear cutting and logging the evidence is clearly seen that they believe nothing that they are doing with cutting down the world's forests is hurting the ecosytems because they are "re-planting" all or most of the trees removed.

Reason 2: Irreversible damage

-Evidence: Anti-deforestation activists base their arguments on the simple statistics and facts that when one cuts down forests, irreversible damage is inflicted on the local ecosystem. Eventually, when enough forests are eliminated, damage will begin to show worldwide4. This is a truly compelling argument. The more forests that are destroyed, the more harm that is brought upon every species in existence, including humanity. If humanity is to survive, it has to slow its population growth, and more specifically slow the cutting down of forests and the ruining of Earth’s ecosystems.

Reason 3: Re-planting may help out in the short-term but what about the long-term

-Evidence: The problem with deforestation is that even though it may be true that companies plant more trees than they cut down, these companies do not (or cannot) rectify damage done to certain organisms.

Objections your audience might have:

-Objection 1: Re-planting may not be the only way to replenish the forests that have been torn down.

-Objection 2: Deforestation is obviously happening for a reason, whether be that good or bad, isnt there some way we can make it less harmful on the environment.

I should feel the need to qualify all my claims and reasons in order to gain qualification and the audiences trust that these sources are in fact credible.