Essay Gasland Rhetorical Analysis - 623 Words

Fox’s argument is effective, because he uses all forms of pathos, ethos, and logos, to clearly define that Natural Gas Companies are in the wrong and that the general public could be at risk in the imminent future. That being said, although the people with contaminated drinking water are the only ones being presently threatened, as more and more people sign off their land to be fracked, more and more people have their lands and livelihoods destroyed. The audience isn’t just the people being terrorized, the problem is looming over everyone who has built a life near a body of water, and that effectively includes every single person. The rhetorical purpose is to inform everyone of this problem, and hopefully prevent people†¦show more content†¦Pathos was the major component in Fox’s argument, and it specifically featured phrases like, â€Å"She turned into a walking nightmare of a mess physically,† where a woman was described after having consumed the water for several months. The entire empathetic argument revolved around having your world stolen, which is what the landowner experienced when their drinking and outside water was polluted, their rigs on the edge of explosion, and the air hopefully being sucked out of their lungs before it burned them. The images of the dead rabbits, frogs, fish, and birds also tugged at the heartstrings, because in no way could that many animals have died wit hout humans having to do with the cause. The helplessness of the animals contributed a gloomy disposition to the entire argument, and further contributed to putting the companies in the absolute wrong. Fox’s style included a majority of facts, which enabled him to express credibility and empathy through them. He used a very dry humor when discussing the randomness the companies exhibited, i.e. colored flags, and constantly brought back the banjo to represent the song â€Å"This Land is Your Land† from the beginning of the presentation. The changing scenes kept the audience entertained and engaged, because it was easier to focus on multiple shorter segments than a monologue that was dull and endless. The components of the argument, mainly