Jonathan Smilovich

October 5^th, 2018

Ms. McIntosh

English 11000

Source Based Essay

Rhetoric isn’t used the same way in every piece of writing. Articles use various writing techniques to persuade your stance regarding some issue. The issue that we will look at is plastic pollution. Authors from these 4 articles all take different stances and use their purpose, genre, stance, and intended audience to help shape and communicate their message about plastic pollution.

The magazine article, “Ben Shapiro: The Plastic Straw Ban Sucks / Opinion; It gives us that little surge of do-gooderism, with little actual sacrifice”, brings light to the plastic straw ban. The author, Ben Shapiro, takes a stand against the ban, which is set place in California. He starts off with some facts to show how vigorous the consequences are for violating the ban. For example, if restaurants are to continue to hand out straws they can face a $100 to $1,000 fine plus six months of prison. (Shapiro 2) These consequences are just for a first-time offense. Ben Shapiro then goes on about how most of the plastic pollution isn’t coming from straws. This pollution is coming from five countries. These countries are responsible for 60 percent of all plastic waste dumped in the ocean. These countries are China, Indonesia, the Philippines, Thailand and Vietnam. (Shapiro 2) On the other hand, the United States ships most of its waste to China to be recycled, but ends up being dumped in the ocean. Straws aren’t only being dumped in the ocean. The Great Pacific Garbage Patch is made up of fishing nets, completely unrelated to bendy straws. Shapiro then explains that this ban is just put in place to make us feel good. In other words, to provide people with a false sense that they’re actually saving the environment. The purpose of this article is to mainly inform the general public that straws aren’t the main culprit of plastic pollution in the oceans. The author wants the everyday person to realize how insignificant their straw really is.

The magazine article, “Ben Shapiro: The Plastic Straw Ban Sucks / Opinion; It gives us that little surge of do-gooderism, with little actual sacrifice”, uses its rhetoric to help denote the plastic straw ban. The purpose of this article is to inform people how insignificant the straw ban is.  Shapiro backs this claim by stating “that all the plastic straws would amount to 0.03 percent of the 8 million metric tons of plastic waste on the high seas.” (Shapiro 2) Shapiro also helps to reinforce the purpose of this article by saying, “doesn’t make us feel good to spend time on actual problems.” The straw ban is just a distraction from the necessary steps to combat plastic pollution in our oceans. The everyday person doesn’t want to spend time on serious issues, rather care for themselves mostly. (Shapiro 2) The audience of this magazine article is to the everyday person. Shapiro’s use of humor in the article helps the everyday reader stay interested in the article. Shapiro humorously writes, “if straws are criminalized, only criminals will have straws. And I’m stocking up at Costco, planning my straw smuggling ring.” (Shapiro 2) This humor is easily used to grab attention from the everyday person. Shapiro pokes fun by humorously exaggerating the straw ban. The genre of this article is journalism. This article is reporting on recent news of the straw ban that passed in California. Journalism spreads news in the eyes of the journalists. Even though this article is humorous, it is full of facts. Facts such as that “Seattle, San Luis Obispo and Malibu have also embraced the straw ban, too.” (Shapiro 1) Shapiro delivers the facts in a fun and entertaining way. Shapiros stance on this topic is extremely against the straw ban. He wants to focus on the main issues regarding plastic pollution. Shapiro mentions that “The United States ships a lot of its waste plastic to China for recycling, and China then reportedly dumps it in the ocean.” (Shapiro 2) This helps turn the attention of the everyday reader towards this problem. Shapiro is persuading his readers to focus on the more pressing problems.

The website article, “The Oceans Are Drowning In Plastic — And No One’s Paying Attention”, focuses on how plastic ends up in our ocean and how quickly plastics took over the world. The article starts off by stating that every year, 19 billion pounds of plastic waste end up in our oceans. We are being overwhelmed by all the waste we create. Plastics are used in almost everything, which is why it isn’t surprising that the oceans are full of it. It’s an extremely cheap and versatile material. The main issue producing so much plastic is that plastics are non-biodegradable. This means that these plastics last in the environment and don’t degrade. Plastics just break down into microscopic pieces which affects all aquatic life. Most of the plastics come from land. The main reason why this occurs is due to the mismanaged removal of plastic waste Most plastic ends up being dumped in the ocean. Many developing nations use this method of waste management which hurts the environment. Developing nations don’t bear all the blame, the US is full of plastic litter. All these plastic chip bags, straws, and plastic bags all get picked up by some source of water and carried into the ocean. It’s hard to think that plastic is so widespread since it was just introduced in the 1950s. From 1975, plastic production has increased by 620 percent. (Mosbergen 2) This exponential growth hasn’t given science the chance to predict the consequences of all this waste. Plastic has been affecting aquatic wildlife which translates towards human health. The damage comes full circle.

 

The website article, “The Oceans Are Drowning In Plastic — And No One’s Paying Attention”, uses rhetorical elements to bring attention to the amount of plastic pollution in our oceans. The purpose of this article is to inform the everyday person how much plastic is actually in our oceans and where it comes from. When we throw plastic away we don’t think of where it goes. No one really knows how much plastic is in our oceans. The author uses various examples and studies to inform the reader about these issues. The author wants us to know where most of this pollution is coming from. For example, the author brings up that “In 2010, according to Jambeck’s research, over 50 percent of waste in more than 60 countries worldwide was found to be inadequately managed, mostly due to a lack of waste management infrastructure coupled with ballooning populations.” (Mosbergen 3) The main cause of pollution is directly correlated to human population growth. Using this research study helps to strengthen the writer’s purpose and to show the reader how the oceans get polluted. The first line of this article shows that the intended audience is the everyday person since it’s a staggering statistic. The author writes, “Imagine an area 34 times the size of Manhattan.” (Mosbergen 1) That is an interesting way to start off this article since the title doesn’t pertain to it. The author has grabbed the attention from the reader and then goes on to shock them by writing, “Now imagine it covered ankle-deep in plastic waste — piles of soda bottles and plastic bags, takeout containers by the mile, drinking straws as far as the eye can see.” (Mosbergen 1). The genre of this article is informative. The author includes research studies throughout the article. For example, the author includes a study which found that “1 in 4 fish that researchers purchased from fish markets in Indonesia and the United States during the second half of 2014 were found to have plastic in their guts.” This research finding conveys to us how much damage plastic has done to our ocean life. The authors stance in this article is supportive of adopting the recycling of plastics. In the article the author writes, “We can all start by thinking twice before we use single-use plastic products ― and when we do use them, we should take care to properly dispose of them or recycle.” (Mosbergen 5) The author exclaims that ending plastic pollution starts with us, the everyday person.

 

The newspaper article, “Plastic within the Great Pacific Garbage Patch is ‘increasing exponentially,’ scientists find” brings awareness towards the ever-growing Great Pacific Garbage patch. This article starts off with staggering statistics regarding the garbage patch. The garbage patch is full of 79,000 tons of plastic. (Mooney 1) The patch isn’t an island. It’s an area of floating moving plastic. This area moves with the currents. The patch doesn’t grow in size, but in fact it grows in density. The middle of the patch is becoming more plastic dense. Most of the debris in the patch is fishing debris such as fishing nets. This material is sinking from the patch and travels to the ocean floor. This is affecting all aspects of the ocean. This is the most dramatic consequence of human’s actions on the environment, and we are only coming to terms with it now.

The newspaper article, “Plastic within the Great Pacific Garbage Patch is ‘increasing exponentially,’ scientists find”, uses rhetorical elements to promote environmental reform. The authors purpose is to educate the reader about the Great Pacific Garbage Patch. The author wants the reader to realize the true dangers and consequences the garbage patch has. This message is clear when the author writes, “In this sense, the Great Pacific Garbage Patch is, in the end, merely the most dramatic outward symptom of a far deeper problem of enormous volumes of human waste reaching places where it was never intended to be.” (Mooney 3) We have no idea of the consequences that can result from plastic reaching places it was never intended to be. We will not see the immediate affects to the environment from this pollution. Since we see no immediate affects, everyday people aren’t aware of the issue. Most people have no idea how our plastic coffee cup ends up in the ocean, but the author makes sure to educate the reader. The intended audience, is yet again, the general public. The language is straight forward and easy to understand. The author includes multiple facts like, “The “patch” is not an island or a single mass”, which explains to the reader as if they don’t have background knowledge of this topic. (Mooney 1) There are no specific words or phrases that are hard to understand or are highly intricate. The genre of this article is environmentalism. This article sets the idea to set nature first. Environmentalism emphasizes how we must act now to prevent the consequences of destroying the environment. The author states that “The results are alarming; it really shows the urgency of this situation,” to convey this idea of how urgent the matter is. (Mooney 3) We must act now to save the future of earth. The authors stance on this issue is pro environmentalism. The author writes, “Ocean trash isn’t just bad for the environment — it’s bad for your state of mind” which conveys that he supports environmentalism. (Mooney 3) He explains that this pollution in the future will change our way of life, thus our state of mind. This opinion gives us insight into the authors stance.

The academic journal, “Marine pollution: the future challenge is to link human and wildlife studies.”, connects marine pollution to the health of all life on earth, including humans. Rapid population growth has been a threat to the oceans of the world. Since most of the population lives on the coast of most countries, polluting the ocean is common. This pollution decreases biodiversity and decreases biological productivity. This will then lead to a depletion of human marine food sources. In a way we are causing our own downfall. The animals we eat from the ocean can make us sick, due to ocean pollution. Fish who swim in contaminated waters will carry pollutants in their tissue, which we then consume. Another impact that pollution in the ocean has on fish is mental retardation. Fish rely on their cognitive abilities to survive. We are making our oceans toxic every year. At some point this needs to end.

 

The academic journal, “Marine pollution: the future challenge is to link human and wildlife studies.”, uses its rhetorical components to link the outcomes and damage of plastic pollution on all life on earth. The purpose of this article is to report on the direct effects of marine pollution on aquatic animals and to show how it affects human health. For example, the author writes, “Because many pollutants accumulate in marine organisms, humans are exposed to pollutants when they consume food from polluted areas.” (Jenssen 1) Our own pollution is poisoning us. We are killing ourselves and no one is dealing with that issue. The intended audience of this article is for people with higher knowledge about the environment and environmental issues. When the author says that,” Recent reports have documented dose relationships between mercury, dioxins, furans, and PCBs and several reproductive, cognitive, and neurologic factors in humans”, he uses specific pollutants and gives no background detail. (Jenssen 2) The reader must have prior knowledge about this topic. The genre of this article is centered around health. Health regarding animals and humans alike. The article brings this idea up when the author writes, “To obtain better knowledge of effects of marine pollution on populations, more focus should be put on integrating results from human and wildlife studies, which are often viewed separately.” (Jenssen 3) This quote also conveys that the author supports studying animal health with human health. Animal health has a massive influence on human health.

As we can see, all these 4 sources have numerous differences and similarities. All the sources have a stance on supporting environmentalism. On the other hand, their intended audiences are different. For example, the magazine article is written in everyday language and is humorous, but the academic journal has complex vocabulary and is mostly facts. The academic journal is meant for people with background knowledge of plastic pollution. All the genres are different yet have similar messages. Every article uses its rhetorical elements to help persuade its intended audience.

 

 

 

 

Work Cited

Jenssen, Bjorn Munro. “Marine pollution: the future challenge is to link human and wildlife studies. (Guest Editorial).” Environmental Health Perspectives, vol. 111, no. 4, 2003, p. A198+. Opposing Viewpoints in Context, http://link.galegroup.com/apps/doc/A102102842/OVIC?u=cuny_ccny&sid=OVIC&xi d=0a9a4c5a. Accessed 16 Sept. 2018.

 

Mooney, Chris. “Plastic within the Great Pacific Garbage Patch is ‘increasing exponentially,’ scientists find.” Washingtonpost.com, 22 Mar. 2018. Opposing Viewpoints in Context, http://link.galegroup.com/apps/doc/A531963563/OVIC?u=cuny_ccny&sid=OVIC&xi d=81121bf0. Accessed 16 Sept. 2018.

 

Mosbergen, Dominique. “The Oceans Are Drowning In Plastic — And No One’s Paying Attention.” The Huffington Post, TheHuffingtonPost.com, 12 May 2017, www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/plastic-waste-oceans_us_58fed37be4b0c46f0781d426.

Shapiro, Ben. “Ben Shapiro: The Plastic Straw Ban Sucks / Opinion; It gives us that little surge of do-gooderism, with little actual sacrifice.” Newsweek, 17 Aug. 2018. Opposing Viewpoints in Context, http://link.galegroup.com/apps/doc/A549548140/OVIC?u=cuny_ccny&sid=OVIC&xi d=b9e09911. Accessed 16 Sept. 2