ARGUMENT ANALYSIS EXAMPLES
Piece 1: (35/40)
Following the recent shark related fatalities, Dr. Euan Ritchie contends in
his opinion piece, “Predators such as sharks are essential for the world’s
health” that sharks are a key part of the ecosystem and killing them is not
an effective prevention method. The piece published in the Herald Sun on
the 28th of January 2014, draws attention to the ineffectiveness of
traditional methods like shark culling. Through this, the author adopts a
factual and urgent tone to encourage the target audience of beach-goers,
environmentalists and the government to acknowledge that shark
prevention methods should be reassessed and safety methods should not
come at the cost of mass extinction of predators and an imbalance in the
ecosystem.
Ritchie begins by establishing the importance of predators in creating
balance in an ecosystem to argue against eliminating predator
populations. The use of “we” and “us” includes the audience with the
issue as well as establishes a sense of responsibility specifically in the
instance of an increase in pests because of dingo populations decreasing.
The further use of rhetorical questions before explaining things
emphasizes the idea and makes it easier for the audience to understand
as well as creating an engaging piece. By stating “our study” the author
establishes himself as a credible source and someone who has spent time
researching the issue. Consequently, the reader is positioned to trust the
author and consider his stance on the issue. The language choice in using
“shot and poisoned” has a negative connotation and paints a vivid
imagery in the reader’s mind of cruelty and brutal protection methods.
This highlights how primal and unnecessarily cruel the safety measures
against predators are. The accompanying image of a shark against a stark
blue background grounds the argument that sharks are just an everyday
part of marine life that protect against invasive species and
overpopulation of fish, like the one pictured with the shark. The author
wants the audience to feel empathy toward predators and view the
prevention methods as unfair and unjust which will encourage them to
support his argument against methods like shark culling and poisoning
predators.
Pivoting from the cruelties done to predators, Ritchie shifts to the
consequences of eliminating predators in order to further highlight the
importance of predators in keeping balance in the ecosystem. Ritchie
accumulates the consequences of a decreased number of predators as
“soil erosion, lower carbon sequestration and loss of habitat for native
animals” to show that there are dire consequences to the forced removal
, of predators from their natural environment. Words like “critical” emulate
a sense of urgency. This compels the reader to recognise the vital role of
predators in preventing natural disasters and dismantles the
misconception that predators are only dangerous. The author also evokes
visceral discomfort in “forgoing and education.….once kept in check by
leopards and lions” and conveys that the daily lives of individuals are
being affected because of the lack of predators in keeping environmental
balance. This aligns the readers’ moral values with the need of equity and
justice to prevent the endangering of predators to keep pests and invasive
species in check and therefore support the author’s cause that predators
are essential to the world’s health. The author then stokes the audience’s
underlying fear that their “taxpayer funded dollars” are not being put to
effective use. This is further emphasised with the urgency of “request a
full cost-benefit analysis” compelling the reader to recognise that the
current shark prevention methods are ineffective and a financial drain. His
targeted utilisation of words “wasted” and “worse” elicits a sense of panic
in the reader and compels them to in fact ensure that their money is put
to good use by the removal of traditional safety measures. Consequently,
as the tone shifts from solemn to factual and authoritative, the reader
feels financially exploited and morally compelled to oppose shark culling
programs for their benefit.
Building on his initial ecological defense, Ritchie offers alternative
solutions to the problem in an effort to deter cruel and ineffective
practices toward technologically advanced and cost-effective methods,
compelling the reader to accept his stance that shark culling is an ancient
practice that is unnecessarily cruel. The author shifts from his defensive
stance and acknowledges the harms of predators to “pose challenges”
however he does not agree to the aggressive methods of precaution to
control this. Instead, it is used as an attempt to demonstrate his
understanding of the issue and appealing to readers who are in support of
shark culling. Following this with the alternative methods, “education and
new management” dismantles the misconception that shark culling is the
only effective shark prevention method. This provokes a desire to enforce
systematic change in removing traditional measures and replacing them
with more effective and efficient methods. Further generalising the
population to “want smarter solutions”, the author manipulates the reader
to support his solutions. This mobilises the public sentiment in favour of
new methods of shark prevention and to discard the traditional shark
culling. Ultimately, the reader is compelled to recognise that traditional
methods are ineffective and align their moral values to wanting an
efficient system that is safer and supportive of the eco-system.
Piece 1: (35/40)
Following the recent shark related fatalities, Dr. Euan Ritchie contends in
his opinion piece, “Predators such as sharks are essential for the world’s
health” that sharks are a key part of the ecosystem and killing them is not
an effective prevention method. The piece published in the Herald Sun on
the 28th of January 2014, draws attention to the ineffectiveness of
traditional methods like shark culling. Through this, the author adopts a
factual and urgent tone to encourage the target audience of beach-goers,
environmentalists and the government to acknowledge that shark
prevention methods should be reassessed and safety methods should not
come at the cost of mass extinction of predators and an imbalance in the
ecosystem.
Ritchie begins by establishing the importance of predators in creating
balance in an ecosystem to argue against eliminating predator
populations. The use of “we” and “us” includes the audience with the
issue as well as establishes a sense of responsibility specifically in the
instance of an increase in pests because of dingo populations decreasing.
The further use of rhetorical questions before explaining things
emphasizes the idea and makes it easier for the audience to understand
as well as creating an engaging piece. By stating “our study” the author
establishes himself as a credible source and someone who has spent time
researching the issue. Consequently, the reader is positioned to trust the
author and consider his stance on the issue. The language choice in using
“shot and poisoned” has a negative connotation and paints a vivid
imagery in the reader’s mind of cruelty and brutal protection methods.
This highlights how primal and unnecessarily cruel the safety measures
against predators are. The accompanying image of a shark against a stark
blue background grounds the argument that sharks are just an everyday
part of marine life that protect against invasive species and
overpopulation of fish, like the one pictured with the shark. The author
wants the audience to feel empathy toward predators and view the
prevention methods as unfair and unjust which will encourage them to
support his argument against methods like shark culling and poisoning
predators.
Pivoting from the cruelties done to predators, Ritchie shifts to the
consequences of eliminating predators in order to further highlight the
importance of predators in keeping balance in the ecosystem. Ritchie
accumulates the consequences of a decreased number of predators as
“soil erosion, lower carbon sequestration and loss of habitat for native
animals” to show that there are dire consequences to the forced removal
, of predators from their natural environment. Words like “critical” emulate
a sense of urgency. This compels the reader to recognise the vital role of
predators in preventing natural disasters and dismantles the
misconception that predators are only dangerous. The author also evokes
visceral discomfort in “forgoing and education.….once kept in check by
leopards and lions” and conveys that the daily lives of individuals are
being affected because of the lack of predators in keeping environmental
balance. This aligns the readers’ moral values with the need of equity and
justice to prevent the endangering of predators to keep pests and invasive
species in check and therefore support the author’s cause that predators
are essential to the world’s health. The author then stokes the audience’s
underlying fear that their “taxpayer funded dollars” are not being put to
effective use. This is further emphasised with the urgency of “request a
full cost-benefit analysis” compelling the reader to recognise that the
current shark prevention methods are ineffective and a financial drain. His
targeted utilisation of words “wasted” and “worse” elicits a sense of panic
in the reader and compels them to in fact ensure that their money is put
to good use by the removal of traditional safety measures. Consequently,
as the tone shifts from solemn to factual and authoritative, the reader
feels financially exploited and morally compelled to oppose shark culling
programs for their benefit.
Building on his initial ecological defense, Ritchie offers alternative
solutions to the problem in an effort to deter cruel and ineffective
practices toward technologically advanced and cost-effective methods,
compelling the reader to accept his stance that shark culling is an ancient
practice that is unnecessarily cruel. The author shifts from his defensive
stance and acknowledges the harms of predators to “pose challenges”
however he does not agree to the aggressive methods of precaution to
control this. Instead, it is used as an attempt to demonstrate his
understanding of the issue and appealing to readers who are in support of
shark culling. Following this with the alternative methods, “education and
new management” dismantles the misconception that shark culling is the
only effective shark prevention method. This provokes a desire to enforce
systematic change in removing traditional measures and replacing them
with more effective and efficient methods. Further generalising the
population to “want smarter solutions”, the author manipulates the reader
to support his solutions. This mobilises the public sentiment in favour of
new methods of shark prevention and to discard the traditional shark
culling. Ultimately, the reader is compelled to recognise that traditional
methods are ineffective and align their moral values to wanting an
efficient system that is safer and supportive of the eco-system.
