Revision Exercise 41: Environment Watch, p. 57
1. Three different types of evidence
The author relies on anecdotal evidence and personal observation to suggest that plastic bags are killing our wildlife. Accordingly, the author appeals to our emotions by explaining how whales die from digesting plastic bags. Purpose: She seeks to elicit the reader’s concern and care for animals and encourages them to show greater responsibility. She hopes that readers will recognise the consequences of their careless action.
2. Mr Scott refers to facts from Clean Up Australia to show that the size of the waste/problem that is harming animals. Facts and figures: they seek to shock us with the extent of the problem.
3. Expert opinion
Julie’s reference to Mr John Dee who is an environmental activist adds credibility to her argument. He proves that animals are often killed because of plastic bags. The expert reference to Mr Dee (Planet Ark) also validates the anecdotal evidence and gives it credibility. Also, in many countries young infants have also been suffocated from plastics. (“Bin the bag” is a pun and an alliterative phrase that has a stern tone.)
Impact: to shame people who throw away plastic bags and make people feel angry at the damage they cause.
Reference to experts and comparisons. Trent uses comparisons with other countries to show that it is possible to change people’s behaviour; he reassures people that there is a solution.
Common sense/ cause-and-effect reasoning/ links: people often need a reason or incentive to care or change their behaviour; he infers that people do not care because they are often not making the comfortable choices.
2. Attack on the Environment Minister
Trent discredits the Environment Minister. He implies that the Minister is short-sighted and narrow-minded. The fact that he seems to lack knowledge of the problem casts doubts on his reputation and credentials and authority as a minister and makes it difficult for the public to trust him.
Technique/ words: “pitter patter” approach: This alliterative phrase shows his lack of urgency and attention to detail and seeks to shame him for his inaction. In the side column, he also attacks the Minister’s logic. People will not have to pay more if they make an effort to reuse bags. (The metaphoric reference to the “real iceberg” is designed to alarm people at the extent of the rubbish that is not being addressed.)
The emotive reference to “dumped” suggests that people do not understand that it is an environmental problem.
Fred (reasoning tactics) : relies on logical appeals and common sense to suggest that people will not incur a tax or charge if they reuse plastic bags, only if they are so completely forgetful. “It will not “cost anything “ if people reuse their bags. This statement/assumption implies that the Minister is gaining poor advice or not thinking rationally; its purpose is to sideline the minister and show his lack of will. The inclusive reference to “if we can’t solve these problems”, suggests that everyone needs to play their role.
3. Phrase and purpose: “the real iceberg lurking beneath the surface”: the metaphor suggests that there is a huge problem concealed beneath the surface and is threatening to disrupt the environment. This plays upon our fears and anxieties.
4. Appeal: “Making people dig into their pockets is the best way to encourage consumers to change their shopping habits …”
The hip-pocket appeal and appeal to common sense (cause-and-effect reasoning): Trent reasons that people are more likely to change their behaviour if they have to pay extra. The comparisons with Europe and Asia suggest that it is possible to change people’s behaviour through costs and refunds and that people need an incentive to act/care.
5. Joanie’s criticism
Joanie criticises and shames the fishermen and the swimmers because their thoughtless actions are leading to death. She agitates for change; for the public to pressure the government to change people’s behaviour. The reference to the unnecessary waste of money is likely to rankle with taxpayers;
The quote from Zoos Victoria director of wildlife also validates her concerns.
It only takes a “tad more care”; this emotive and colloquial reference implies that people are so careless that they only need to make minimal changes to have a big impact.
Her appeals to duty of care and responsibility have a moral flavour as she encourages people to do the right thing by their environment. Accordingly, people are likely to feel ashamed if they fail to consider the impact of their actions on animals’ lives.
6. Scare tactics
Both authors seek to instil fear in members of the public. Julie’s reference to the dying wildlife and children suffocating encourages us to worry about the fate of many victims.
Trent seeks to scare people by drawing attention to the size of the problem and the fact there we have an enormous landfill problem. Also many animals are killed because of plastic bags.
Trent also plays upon our fears with the figurative reference to the “iceberg”. This metaphor draws attention to the size of the threat that is underestimated. Also his attack on the Environment Minister is likely to tap into our frustrations and worry members of the public because of his lack of knowledge.
7. Facts and figures
i. Australians use 4.8 billion plastic bags a year. They cost the retailers $173 million.
ii. The fact that so many bags end up in landfill shows the extent of the problem and the impact on the environment.
iii. Environmental activists and officials would be able to use the figures to pressure the government and councils to ban plastic bags.
- Return to Red Workbook Tasks
- Return to Lesson 6: Revisions tasks (summary)
Taking it Further: Revision Exercise 41, p. 57
Who, what, how and why?: Identifying persuasive techniques and writing sentences/paragraphs that analyse
Julie’s comments: Planet Ark
View: Julie asserts that plastic bags should be banned because they are destroying the environment and killing children and wildlife.
Evidence: Julie relies on real-life or anecdotal examples to prove that plastic bags are extremely harmful to animals. This evidence helps people understand the consequences of their actions and relate to the author’s concerns. The fact that they are dying “innocently” suggest that they are victims of our careless actions. She also refers to an expert’s opinion, John Dee from Planet Ark, to state that this is a common incident. He is a reputable expert and is an environmental activist. He has knowledge about the environment and the wildlife and so his opinion adds credibility to Julie’s comments.
Tone: She adopts a critical tone and asks for urgent action.
Appeals: She appeals to duty of care and responsibility as well as moral values.
Purpose: She seeks to elicit the public’s sympathy for the animals and encourages us to show greater responsibility. She wants us, as shoppers, to recognise the consequences of our careless action, and to shame those who are reckless.
TRENT SCOTT, pg 56.
Evidence: Trent relies on comparative facts to show that retailers in Europe and Asia have introduced measures to reduce the use of plastic bags. He appeals to the reader’s common sense by suggesting that if people have to pay for plastic bags they will use less. He also uses statistics from a reputable source, Clean Up Australia, to shock and shame shoppers about the consequences of their wasteful habits.
Technique: rhetorical question: “Why are we so slow to act?” This question encourages people to think about the retailers’ lack of action and their indifference.
Technique: Attack: Trent discredits the Environment Minister. He implies that the Minister is short-sighted or narrow-minded. The fact that he seems to lack knowledge of the problem casts doubts on his reputation and credentials as a minister and makes it difficult for the public to trust him. This creates a distance between members of the public and those in the ministry.
Technique/ words: “pitter patter” approach: This alliterative phrase shows his lack of urgency and reluctance to act; “the real iceberg lurking beneath the surface”: the metaphor suggests that there is a huge problem concealed beneath the surface and is threatening to disrupt the environment.
Technique: Further rhetorical questions again draw attention to his lack of knowledge.
Supporting reason: Trent suggests that people need a reason or an incentive to care.
Appeal: hip-pocket appeal and common sense/ cause-and-effect reasoning: he reasons that people are more likely to change their behaviour if they have to pay extra. The comparisons with Europe and Asia suggest that it is possible to change people’s behaviour through costs and refunds and that people need an incentive to act/care.
“Wrapped in Waste”: Ms Joanie Smith: Techniques:
Ms Smith attacks fishermen and swimmers because of their thoughtless actions. She shames such people who are causing unnecessary suffering.
The government spends $100,000 to clean up the sea: this is a hip-pocket appeal which makes people angry and frustrated at the waste of money.
The author refers to expert opinion to explain the suffering of the sea animals. This arouses the reader’s sympathy.
The author encourages people to care: this is a moral appeal and those who do the right thing are praised, while those who are reckless are shamed.
From her own personal standpoint as a concerned community member, Ms Smith shares with her online audience her dismay at the fact that wildlife are being heartlessly killed. Accordingly, she encourages her audience to recognise the extent of the suffering and show care and consideration. Specifically, she discredits the fisherman and swimmers, whom she isolates with critical references to the heartlessness. Emotive and personal references to the fact that they are “recklessly” dumping rubbish, implies that they are heartless. Also the only need show a ‘tad more care” highlights the extent of their indifference.
- Return to Red Workbook Tasks
- Return to Lesson 6: Revisions tasks (summary)