Rachel Carsons Central Arguments Of Parathion
Rachel Carsons central argument of this passage deals with focusing on the negative factors "Parathion" can produce. She uses rhetorical devices such as ethos, rhetorical questions, and visual imagery all to persuade the reader that Parathion is harmful.
The first part of the passage uses ethos to appeal to authority. Carson states, "The Fish and Wildlife service haas found it necessary to express serious concern over this trend, pointing out that parathion treated areas constitute a potential hazard to humans, domestic animals, and wildlife". This supports the argument Carson has about the pesticide to be discontinued. She points out how the Wildlife center agrees and believes that parathion has the ability to harm all living things besides
The first part of the passage uses ethos to appeal to authority. Carson states, "The Fish and Wildlife service haas found it necessary to express serious concern over this trend, pointing out that parathion treated areas constitute a potential hazard to humans, domestic animals, and wildlife". This supports the argument Carson has about the pesticide to be discontinued. She points out how the Wildlife center agrees and believes that parathion has the ability to harm all living things besides